Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002_02_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE Cie ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 26, 2002, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman 40.\ 67`' Linda S. Harrington 4 Jillian A. Martin , Arthur Wexler �n���� 41- Paul A. Winick �• R�y 4 2002 rAiRteu A oclotuo Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel r Vy'` Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Nancy Seligson, Liaison T. Denise M. Carbone, Public Stenographer Carbone &Associates, Ltd. 111 North Central Avenue Hartsdale, NY 10530 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER 411, The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Gunther said we will move the establishment of the date of our next meeting and review of any minutes, etc., to the end of the meeting Mr. Gunther read the first application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2471 (adjourned 10/24/01;11/28/01;December 19,2001) Application of Fred Friedman/Ann M. Woods requesting a variance to construct a fence at the rear of the property on the premises located at 4 High Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213, Lot 552. The rear yard fence as proposed has a height of 8.5 ft. where a maximum of 5 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-52 for a rear yard fence in an R-15 Zone District. Mr. Gunther said the first application, No. 1, case 2471, is going to be adjourned as per letter from the applicant. He said if there is anyone here for that application it is still adjourned. Mr. Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2484(adjourned 1/23/02) Application of Robert Stavis requesting a variance to legalize three stone buttresses at Carriage House wall and to allow an existing pier to remain as part of the front stone wall on the premises located at 211 Hommocks Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 417, Lot 77. The buttresses as constructed have a side yard of 29 ft. where 35 ft. is permitted pursuant to Section 240-33B(2); the pier as constructed as part of the front wall has a height of 6 ft. 3 in. where 5 ft is Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 2 permitted pursuant to Section 240-52A;and further,the buttresses increase the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-50 Zone District. Mr.Gunther said this was adjourned from a prior meeting. He asked if the applicant is present. Mr.Stavis said he was present. Mr.Gunther said rather than reading through the whole application notice,we read it the last time,do you want to proceed or do you wish to request another action at this time? A gentleman said,good evening,my name is Paul Noto and I represent Rob Stavis who is the homeowner in the matter. I was not at the last meeting and Mr.Stavis did appear. As he relayed to me there were some questions regarding the title issue that had been raised by the Town attorney as well as a neighboring property owner. As it was relayed to me,Ms.Gallent was going to do some research and advise the Zoning Board of her opinion on the title issue. I don't know if you completed that process or if you want us to comment on it. Ms.Gallent said I have done some research,but I never actually concluded it,because it involved actually making a request. On February 7,2002,I received a letter from the title company indicating that Mr. Stavis owned half of something called a spur which comes off of Hommocks Road and then leads to the reserve strip. Ms.Gallent said I talked to Mr.Stavis and he told me that the spur is the land on which his pillars are located. So,we thought the issue had been resolved. There's only evidence in the record that he owns it and we can move forward. Today I found out the pillars are not on that strip of land. I understand Mr. Stavis wants to adjourn the matter so that he can investigate his options now that it's clear to him he does not own the land or it's not so clear to him,but the evidence he thought he had that showed that he owned it,does not show that. He would like an adjournment,as I understand it,to deal with the issue. Mr.Noto said that is partially correct. As I understand it,the application is for two variances. There are two separate sets of pillars,which makes it a little confusing. As it relates to one set of pillars,Ms. Gallent said there's an ownership issue and not the other,Mr.Noto said correct. The issue on the reserve strip relates to certain sets of three pillars. On the other side of the spur, we believe that the title company's opinion is dispositive of the issue,that in fact he does,and that that portion of the application we would hope would be granted. I'm assuming procedurally you like to do things all at once and not bifurcate the application. So,either we're going to have to amend the application relating to the other three pillars or ask you to make a decision on the total application at some point,either rejecting half and granting the other half. I don't know if you do that procedurally or not. Ms.Gallent said it's up to the Board,but I would say that it might be better to adjourn the matter to next month. Maybe he'll have resolved the other issue and then we'll hear the whole thing together. Mr.Noto said it might be more than next month. We might need a longer adjournment,but there is one issue I do want to present to you as counsel and I think the Zoning Board needs to be aware of,is the fact that when we originally started this process the issue of ownership of the reserve strip was a question,and as we know from the letter from the title company,it says the estate of Howell and in 1900 the probate had been filed and there is,in fact,a Surrogate's file dated 1900,but that's a long time ago and the file is obviously not accurate. Since that time,as I understand it,the Town has not been collecting property taxes on this parcel and that struck me as rather odd because as we know around here for the most part Q land is owned by somebody and you go to the tax office and they will identify whoever pays the taxes and that's the person you will then notice on an application or any sort of claim. In this case,there doesn't seem to be any tax estate on the property and my question to the Town would be,usually when that happens,the Town takes the parcel in rem. Obviously,that hasn't happened,so we're in something of a quandary because even if we were to notice the estate,we would essentially have to notice a ghost. There is no estate anymore,so if you're going to do additional research I think I would just add to that list, Zoning Board February 26,2002 l-� Page 3 if I might,the issue of why there are no taxes being collected on this parcel and why the Town has not taken this into account which might resolve that issue of the reserve strip because apparently there is a question of these pillars,which were put on simply to buttress a wall,are on the reserve strip which he does not own. Mr.Noto said I would just in addition to requesting the adjournment,ask that you might look into that matter. Mr.Noto said I think it might help us all better understand this whole process. Mr.Gunther said the application of Robert Stavis,case#2484 will be adjourned. We will continue to call it until you're at the point of resolution. Mr.Noto thanked the Board. Mr.Noto said it might be 60 days. We're going to do a search of heirs and 30 days just won't be enough with the holidays,etc. Mr.Noto again thanked the Board. Mr.Gunther said we will call it,but it is our practice not to allow an application to go on indefinitely obviously. Mr.Gunther said the next application,which he read,was adjourned from last month. APPLICATION NO.3-CASE 2485 (adjourned 1/23/02) Application of Mark A.Williams requesting a variance to construct a front porch on the premises located at 51 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block Q 125,Lot 149.The front porch as proposed has a front yard of 26.4 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1),a side yard of 6.6 ft.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District. Anthony Federico,the architect for Mr.Mark Williams,appeared to address the Board. He said that Mr. Williams is asking for a variance for a front yard setback as well as a minor variance on the side yard setback so that he can construct a front porch projecting approximately 6 ft.from the house. That will result in about a 31/2 ft.variance for the front yard and a 1.4 ft.variance for the side yard. His hardship is basically the size of the lot,which is a 5,000 sq.ft.lot located in an R-6 Zone District. As you can see from the site plan on the map,the adjacent house to the left is substantially closer to the front yard setback than Mr.William's property. If you would like to see some photographs,I think I showed these to you at the last meeting,to show what the alignment is along the street. Mr.Federico submitted five pictures, marked as exhibits. Mr.Federico said the first photograph,#1,shows the front of Mr.William's house as well as the adjacent house. As you can see,the adjacent house is much closer to the street than Mr.William's house. The projection of his porch would not even reach that setback that's on that first house. Mr.Gunther said interestingly,it appears from looking at the tax map,every other house on the street is similar to Mr.William's house. The two houses that surround him are going closer to the street than his house. The next house is similar to his. Mr. Wexler said that's a very deceiving photograph. Because of the angle of it, it appears that the projection of the house that's looking at the front of your client's house to the left is not as far out as over there. Mr.Federico said as you can see on the site plan the surveyor located the front of the other house there. The indication I was trying to get in that picture,was that that house was closer. In other photographs you can see that,as the chairman pointed out,that there are some houses that are closer to these front yard setbacks as well as you look down the street. • Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 4 Mr.Federico said also,I don't know if the neighbors are here tonight,but they were here. There are two neighbors from across at the last meeting,and I met with them at the last meeting. They in fact during that meeting,went back to the house,to Mr.William's house,measured the 6 ft.porch and said that that was acceptable to them. They didn't have a problem with that at all. Mr.Wexler asked what was the reason for 6 ft.dimension on the porch? Mr.Federico said the reason is just to allow for him to make use of his property. The rear of the property slopes very steeply down right after his back deck. He doesn't have much yard area. He wants to make use of that area in the front of the house,but he wants to have it covered as a covered entry to the house. He's on a dead-end street and I guess he wants to enjoy that quiet part of the street. The reason for 6 ft. is to allow for him to put some chairs out there and that type of thing. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none,he asked if there were any questions from the public on this application. There were none. If there's no further comment, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,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 Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Mark A.Williams has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans,to construct a front porch on the premises located at 51 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125,Lot 149.The front porch as proposed has a front yard of 26.4 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1),a side yard of 6.6 ft. where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 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 240-39B(1),Section 240-39B(2)(a),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS, Mark A.Williams 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 fmds 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: A. The house sits on an unusual street in the Town of Mamaroneck --it is a dead- end street. The applicant's house sits between two houses that each extend closer to the front property line than does the applicant's. The proposed addition will more or less bring his house in line visually with the two Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 5 neighboring houses. That will not constitute an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to either of those properties. Obviously, the neighbor's front yard is not an area of concern for either neighbor on either side. B. The applicant's goal in this application is to obtain a covered entry to his house and have the ability to have covered seating space. Given the nature of the lot, there is no place where that goal could be achieved without a variance. C. The variance is not substantial. D. There is no evidence of any impact on physical or environmental conditions in the area. E. This is not a self-created difficulty. It is the result of the size of the lot. 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. Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Federico to see the Building Department for your permit during regular hours. Mr.Federico thanked the Board. Mr.Gunther called application#4,Mr. &Mrs.Michael Hollander,and said this application also was adjourned at our January 23,2002 meeting and asked if someone is here representing Mr.Hollander. APPLICATION NO.4-CASE 2486 (adjourned 1/23/02) Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 6 Application of Mr.&Mrs.Michael Hollander requesting a variance to construct a one-story addition with a wood deck and a front entry and covered porch with steps on the premises located at 52 Cooper Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217,Lot 482. The rear one-story addition has a side yard of 5 ft.10 in.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a); the front entry with steps has a front yard of 19 ft.10 in.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240- 39B(1);a side yard of 7 ft.3 in.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in a R-6 Zone District. Mike Csenge,the architect for Mr.&Mrs.Hollander,said he is present and we are back from last month again. Mr.Csenge said after discussion with both the Board last month and my client,we have trimmed back the addition,both the front addition and the rear addition. The front addition is no longer an enclosed vestibule,but we are seeking now just to extend the covered area of the front porch. At present,the existing overhangs are about 20 inches to 22 inches deep. We're looking to go to 4 ft.on a covered entry. With steps we're a little closer to the street than that. Again,this is an open porch,columns and a roof structure on the front. Mr.Csenge said on the side we have brought the addition in the rear back in line with the existing side of the house. As we get to the far corner of the proposed addition,we are better than the existing dwelling by a few inches. The existing conditions are about 7.23 ft.and we're at about 7.3 ft.on the side yard setback where 8 ft.is required. Mr.Csenge said I know my clients have talked to the neighbor directly adjacent to them who had some concern last month and it is my understanding that she no longer has any concerns about the proposed addition at this point. Ms.Harrington asked if that's Kathy Darling at 46. Mr.Csenge said yes. Mr.Winick asked,have we received an amended drawing? Mr.Carpaneto said yes,I think they were marked. Mr.Csenge said I did incorporate a couple of large scales sets for the Building Inspector,in case anyone had difficulty reviewing it. Those are mine. Mr.Gunther said thank you very much. Mr.Csenge asked if there were any questions. Mr.Gunther said the front steps are what setback? Mr. Csenge said the setback of 23.10 ft. is to the edge of the front steps, not the edge of the roof overhang. OMr.Gunther said it's 23.10 ft.as opposed to the original 19.10 ft.? Mr.Csenge said yes,as the previous 19.10 ft. Mr.Gunther asked,you're at 7.4 or 7 ft.4 inches? r Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 7 Mr.Csenge said it's 7 ft.4 in. Mr.Gunther said versus 5 ft.10 in.on the side,with which Mr.Csenge agreed. Mr.Wexler asked,do we have a tax map from this part of the application? Mr.Gunther said yes. Mr.Carpaneto said it might have been the first one. After some discussion,Mr.Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members? There were none. He then asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There were none. After some discussion,on motion of Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,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 Mr.Wexler,seconded by Mr.Gunther,the following resolution was ADOPTED: Q WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Michael Hollander have submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a one-story addition with a wood deck and a front entry and covered porch with steps on the premises located at 52 Cooper Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217,Lot 482. The rear one-story addition has a side yard of 7 ft.4 in.where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);the front entry with steps has a front yard of 23 ft.10 in.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(1);a side yard of 7 ft.3 in. where 8 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-39B(2)(a);and further,the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in a R-6 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 240-39B(2)(a),Section 240-39B(1),Section 240-69;and WHEREAS,Mr.&Mrs.Michael Hollander 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 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. There will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby property owners. The side addition as it projects back from the rear of the house is,in fact,further away from the existing property line than the house as presently exists. The front covered Zoning Board (-I;) Page 26,2002 Page 8 porch,while it is closer to the front property line than required by the code,is an open covered entryway that is in keeping with the character of the house and in character with the homes in this community. The steps are low and will not have a visual impact. B. In this case,having a covered entry at the front is a necessity for a house. The house presently sits 30 ft.back from the property line and any projection to give that cover from the elements will be required to invade that front property yard and the requested variance is the minimum that's required to do that. The extension to the rear of the house is in context with the house. It's set back further than the existing property line and the 7 ft.4 in.versus the 8 ft.is minimal as a side setback. C. The requested variance is not substantial--7 ft. 4 in.versus 8 ft. is not a substantial variance requested and a small,little addition in the front which is a covered open porch is also not substantial. D. The proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environment conditions in the neighborhood or district. E. The alleged difficulty is self-created. O 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. Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Csenge to see the Building Inspector for your permit. Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 9 Mr.Csenge said just as a point of clarification I think you called it 5 ft.10 in.in the rear instead of 7 ft. 4 in. If should be the 7 ft.4 in. Mr.Gunther said it is in accordance with the plans that were submitted,which are dated February 5th. Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.5-CASE 2491 Application of Michael D. &Carla Mathias requesting a variance to construct a tennis court on the premises located at 5 Cornell Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 201,Lot 205. The tennis court as proposed is not within the rear one-third of the property as required pursuant to Section 240-21C(7)(a);and further,the fence has a total height of 10 ft.where 8 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-21C(7)(e)for a tennis court fence in an R-30 Zone District. Mr.Winick said can I ask you a question before we begin. We denied an application two meetings ago that to my recollection is not materially different from this one. It's identical,as my memory serves me. I'm just curious how they're back in two months,whether it's permitted,whether we have a rule about how often you can resubmit. After some discussion,Mr.Winick said my recollection is this application,I don't know if the drawings are the same drawings,but it's sited exactly the same place and has the same proposal for a 10 ft.fence. QI don't know what other factors would be material for the application. Ms.Gallent said I should check,because my recollection is that if it is the same application it should be an application to reopen it. To reopen it there have to be certain circumstances. Mr.Wexler said I wish that we had six months before you could reapply for an application. Ms.Gallent said you actually voted it down. Mr.Gunther said it was denied. Ms.Gallent said I don't know whether you can without any change in your application rehear it except in specified circumstances. I don't think you can. Mr.Gunther asked Mr.Carpaneto,do you have the details of the prior application. Mr.Carpaneto said I believe it's the same application. After some discussion, Mr. Gunther said I would propose to adjourn the matter until we have a clarification. Maybe the representative for the applicant has something to add,but if it appears that it is the same application then we are restricted from hearing it. A gentleman said excuse me,may I approach you? Mr.Gunther said you have to state your name. O The gentleman said my name if Michael Valentine. I'm with Gerosa Tennis Contractors. I filed the original permit when it was declined. I had asked Mr.Carpaneto how to go about filing for an appeal. Ile mentioned to just go ahead and reapply under the Board of Appeals format,which I did. No where was it stipulated the matter of time between the original request and the appeal. Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 10 Mr.Wexler said what I don't quite understand is it was denied for a reason,why would we entertain it if nothing physically is changed? Ms.Gallent said there's a question as to whether you have the power to entertain it under the law. That's a legal question. Then there's the more practical question as to why someone would apply with the same exact application after it has just been denied on the view that nothing had changed so what is the reason. They're separate questions and I need to research the question of whether we have the power under the law to entertain the exact same application when nothing has changed. Mr.Gunther said it is my understanding,in terms of zoning practice,that it is not permitted. Ms.Gallent said that's my memory as well. I don't want to state that for sure without checking the law. Thomas Fanelli,an attorney,and I'm representing the applicant. If the Board would hear the application, my clients are not absolutely fixed on the presentation. As it was,I think there are also material facts in the way it was presented originally which are not correct and that I would like to draw to your attention. Mr.Fanelli said that is my understanding,it is substantially the same. Mr.Gunther said what is presented,even putting a different spin on it,isn't going to change the material facts of a tennis court request in a particular location on a particular parcel of property. In view of that, what I would like to do is to not open the application and not hear it,until such time counsel advises us Q that we can. What I would suggest is in the interim,can you suggest Ms.Gallent how long it takes you to get to that. Ms.Gallent said I can do it tomorrow,Thursday. Mr.Gunther said we can renotice this for our next meeting. Ms.Gallent said if you can do it. Mr. Fanelli said if I can contact your office and discuss the other means of making an application to reopen. Ms.Gallent said sure. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Ms.Martin,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that application#5,case#2491 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting. Mr.Gunther asked the Board to set the meeting date for the next meeting. After some discussion,the next March meeting date was scheduled for April 4,2002,and the April Zoning Board meeting will be on April 24,2002. Mr.Gunther read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.6-CASE 2492 Application of Laura and Stephen Koch requesting a variance to construct a first floor kitchen,breakfast and mudroom and a second floor on the premises located at 42 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 127,Lot 22. The addition as proposed would cause the detached garage to become part of the principal dwelling and would have a rear yard setback of 7.5 ft.where 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38 B(3); and further, the addition Zoning Board Q February 26,2002 Page 11 increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District. Mr.Gunther asked if the applicants,Laura and Stephen Koch,are present. No one was present for this matter. Mr.Gunther called the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2493 Application of George D'Angelo requesting a variance to construct a monument sign at Acura on the premises located at 2155 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501,Lot 1. The sign as proposed has a total height of 15 feet where 6 ft.is required pursuant to Section 175-11C for a monument sign in a"B"Business Zone District. Mr.Gunther asked if there is any here for George D'Angelo. A gentlemen said he was waiting for the attorney and asked,if the Board could hold off until the end of the meeting. Mr.Gunther said yes. Mr.Gunther called the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO.8-CASE 2494 Application of Anthony Coschigano requesting a variance to construct a fireplace on the premises located at 2 Carroll Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222,Lot 390. The addition as proposed has a front yard of 23 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240- 37B(1)for a residence in an R-10 Zone District. Anthony Coschigano of 2 Carroll Place,Larchmont,addressed the Board. He said I was before the Board some time ago requesting a variance to put an addition onto the family room and a garage at which time I planned to start this addition sometime in September. With all the tragic events,it kind of got pushed back a bit,because of some economic issues. In the mean time,I would like to now put a fireplace in this addition and am now coming to you to see if it would be possible to add that onto this structure. Mr.Wexler said why is this front like this. Mr.Carpaneto said 36 inches,because you have the front yard setback there. Mr.Coschigano said the house sits sideways on the lot. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously,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 Mr.Winick,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS,Anthony Coschigano has submitted an application to the Building Inspector,together with plans to construct a fireplace on the premises located at 2 Carroll Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 222,Lot 390. The addition as proposed has a front Zoning Board • February 26,2002 Page 12 yard of 23 ft.where 30 ft.is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(1)for a residence in an R-10 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 240-37B(1);and WHEREAS,Anthony Coschigano 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 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. The request is for a fireplace against an already approved addition. The incremental change is de minimis. QB. The applicant has been before us before and received approval for this variance, given that the addition is going here,and clearly couldn't place the fireplace there without this variance. C. The variance is insubstantial,for the reasons set forth above. D. The bulge out from the house faces the Leatherstocking Trail. Effectively,it impacts on no one. No house faces it,no one has a very direct view of it. Certainly what we have before us today,creates a minimal impact on the nearby properties. E. The difficulty here is created by the lot and not by anything that the applicant has done. 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: • Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 13 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. Mr.Gunther informed Mr.Coschigano to see the Building Department again for a new permit. Mr.Coschigano said he never got the first permit. Thank you again. Mr.Gunther asked what's your time-line from the time of the original grant,get your permit and start construction. Mr.Coschigano said we're going to get started right away. Thank you again. OMr.Gunther then called APPLICATION NO.7-CASE 2493-application of George D'Angelo. Application of George D'Angelo requesting a variance to construct a monument sign at Acura on the premises located at 2155 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 501,Lot 1. The sign as proposed has a total height of 15 feet where 6 ft. is required pursuant to Section 175-11C for a monument sign in a"B"Business Zone District. Larry Gordon,the architect for the project, of 17 North Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont appeared to represent the applicant. Mr.Wexler said isn't this to replace the sign. Mr.Gordon said yes,there is an existing monument sign there that's been there since the building was built in 1986. We are asking to replace the existing sign. It will be exactly the same height as the existing sign and approximately the same width. Mr. Gordon said our building is located in sort of an island,between New Rochelle and Village of Larchmont. It is somewhat unique in its situation. There are signs all along the Village of Larchmont that are situated on poles. Ms.Martin said the signs that currently exist,was that actually required to get a variance to construct that sign that's 15 ft.high. Mr.Gordon said no,we did not. Mr.Carpaneto said there was permit for the original monument sign. After some discussion regarding the ordinance at that time,Mr.Gunther said there's a new sign law since that sign was put up. Mr.Wexler said I thought everything fell into that and has to be renewed every five years or something? Zoning Board February 26,2002 QPage 14 Mr.Carpaneto said there's an ordinance that the pole signs need to be removed by a certain date. Mr.Wexler asked,what's the definition of pole sign? Mr.Carpaneto said that's a monument sign,I think. That's how the original permit is written. It's for a monument sign. Mr.Gordon said the reason we're asking for this change is because Acura is coming out with a logo with a new color scheme. There's a new campaign on and they're asking all the dealers in the United States to make this change. Ms.Martin asked is it lit? Mr.Gordon said no. George D'Angelo said it is going to be lit. It's a blue,however the lighting is going to be much softer than we the existing. Ms.Martin asked,is the current sign lit? Mr.D'Angelo said yes it is. Ms.Martin asked,we're talking external lighting. Mr.D'Angelo said yes,it's just an enhanced lighting like a background type lighting. He said this is the signage that Acura is requiring on their image program for all dealers nationwide. The sign will be lit internally. Ms.Gallent said the current sign is not lit. Mr.D'Angelo said exactly. Mr.Gordon said it will be located in exactly the same spot that it's in now. Ms.Martin said I understand that,but I'm just wondering what the difference will be in the lighting. Ms.Martin asked what they are doing with the parking sign. Mr.Gordon said it will be coordinated with the blue. The parking service sign is not lighted. The enter and exit,directional signs,are lighted in the evening because that's where you go with traffic consideration. Mr. Harrington asked are all the dealerships nationwide going to have this exact sign,with the same height? Mr.Gordon said yes,exactly. Mr.D'Angelo said I've got the brochure there and I can't honestly tell you. There are different sizes,yes. However,the way the dealership is positioned you lose sight there. Because we're on a secondary road, we would need the sight distance. That was the initial reason we went to the sign in the height that we have it now,because anything less than that with the trees we need to screen naturally for the people across the street and when the trees are in bloom you can't see the sign if it was going to be any lower if you're coming down Palmer even though it's the south. Mr.Wexler said the building is set back pretty far from the street. . Zoning Board February 26,2002 Q. Page 15 Mr.D'Angelo said you've really got to pass the enter and exit signs,go past it on the corner of Harrison Drive,which is a dead-end street. If you turn left,then you'll see the sign. Other than that,you won't see it,because of the way that the building is set back. Mr.D'Angelo said it's going to be softer lighting because you have sort of a red color there now. This is going to be blue,but the real haze is where the silver logo in Acura is. The whole sign itself,for all intent and purpose,is not lit. What you'll see if you'll see the"U"of the logo and Acura,the name which will be lit. Ms.Gallent asked,and the name is now lit? Mr.D'Angelo said yes,the name if now lit,but it's in much larger block letters than that one with the color sign. Mr.Wexler asked,they really make you do this? Mr.D'Angelo said unfortunately,yes. I'm perfectly happy with the sign that I had. This is not going to sell any more cares or any less,but it's just a corporate image that they want to instill which I think is good for the grant. Mr.Wexler asked,what happened to the old sign? Mr.D'Angelo said the old sign is history. Ms.Harrington asked the dimensions of the sign. Mr.D'Angelo said it's 15'h ft.high. The pole itself is 12'h ft.and the sign itself is 3 ft.by 10 ft. The monument end of it is 12'h ft.high. Mr.Gunther asked is there a picture of that. Mr.Wexler said this is a much nicer design. After some discussion, Ms. Harrington said the new sign law was put into affect to visually keep everything lower and more pleasing to the eye. Mr.Wexler asked,have you've been down this block and you noticed all the other signs? Ms.Harrington said yes. Mr.Wexler said if think it's controlled primarily by the Village of Larchmont. It's the only commercial property we have in this part of the Town. Mr.Carpaneto said the signs on the Post Road were all taken down. Mr.Gunther said seems to be an awfully high sign. Mr.Wexler said right now it's 15 ft.6 in. That's what exists now. You have to see what's going down that block. Mr.Winick asked to see the corporate identity brochure. Mr.Gunther said between all the gas stations and a guitar place and all that stuff,it's awful. While this may be a handsome sign,it's still a 15 ft. • Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 16 There was some discussion regarding Staples and Mrs.Greens and the height of the signs. Ms.Martin said the other thing is scale. We're talking about a large piece of property. Mr.Winick said it seems to me there are two issues. Basically it's a business reality. It's the franchise that dictates signage to a franchisee. This is the menu we have to choose from. Mr.Winick said there are two signs here that are possible I would think. One is a 15 ft.requested. The next one down is 12 ft. I can't say whether or not dropping that sign at 3 ft.is going to render the sign unusable because of the screening and also make an observation all of the signs are a great deal larger and uglier than the 15 ft.sign. Mr.Gunther said that being said,I don't consider myself bound by a sign brochure. Bronxville and other places have taken the sign situation by the hand and said we're not just going to allow that. I have gone into a bank in Bronxville and we had an identity program across the country. We had to change the logo, so that it fit in to everything else there. We did a ton of business there. I don't think that we should be so pushed because it's Acura and where it's located,I don't think if you said they want a 15 ft.sign that we should say fine a 15 ft.sign. The intent of our sign law was to reduce the visual impact that all these signs have. Undoubtedly,Palmer Avenue is not a very wide street. It's a busy street and if anyone wants to look for Acura on Palmer Avenue they will find it very easily. Mr.Gunther said I would consider a smaller sign than the 15 ft.sign. Mr.D'Angelo said if I can just address the Board,if you don't mind. Recognizing that I'm a homeowner also and I know what the constraints are of some of the communities and I agree with everything you said, a smaller sign would be much cheaper to me economically,so I don't have an issue with that. The issue is that the smaller sign unfortunately would not work with sight distance. The reason being is that when you're attracting a new customer and you're on a secondary road they don't know who you are. I'm not on automobile row on the Post Road,where I have dealerships right next to each other. I'm really only one on Palmer Avenue. When people are coming down Palmer Avenue,maybe they're coming from Larchmont or from New Rochelle,they're going through a residential area. They don't have a clue. This particular sign will actually be smaller than the existing sign,not so much in height but just in square footage on the sign itself. The characteristic of the sign is the lighting of the sign is much lighter than the standout red sign. If you go there now that red sign really hits you,where this color blue is much more subdued. That is not going to be lit. The only thing that will be lit will be the Acura logo,the"A",and the Acura name itself. The Acura name itself,the lettering is just about half the size of what the existing Acura logo is,or the existing Acura letter. Ms.Harrington said when I just said when you're going down Palmer Avenue because you are the only dealership it does stand out and people who are looking for Acura know what the car looks like. You've got them right out there. You can see them. I have never driven by and not known that was the Acura dealership. I haven't ever driven by and glanced at the new model as I'm going. On the Post Road,yes, I understand what you're saying. But then again,on the Post Road I'd fmd myself looking,slowing down to figure out which dealer is which,because they're so close together and the signs are one after another. You have to kind of slow down and figure out where you want to go. I don't think that's the issue with Acura. I really don't because you are the only dealer there,so obviously a car dealer. Mr.D'Angelo said no question about it. Ms.Harrington said I don't know that the sign is the thing that's pulling people in. They know that you're on Palmer Avenue. They're going to fmd you. Mr.D'Angelo said they'll fmd me,but what they'll do is they'll go past me,wind up making a"U"turn on Harrison Drive to come back to the dealership. If you're coming from New Rochelle down to Palmer Avenue there is no signage on the building until you get past the building. Let's assume we went with a • . Zoning Board February 26,2002 Q Page 17 lower sign,which is 12' ft.,you cannot see that sign from afar until you get right up to it because you screen with the trees. The person who's coming from New Rochelle for example, will bypass the dealership and then see the sign at Harrison Drive,stop and have to make a"U"turn to come back. Ms. Harrington said you've got a big entrance and exit sign. You see the car dealer. You see the entrance. Mr.D'Angelo said if you do drive past it,you'll see what I'm saying because the way the building is set back and the sign is on the left side of the building,actually the south of the building,you won't see that Acura sign until you pass the entrance/exit signs. You won't see the showroom,because the showroom is so set back and they have no new cars displayed. As you pass the enter and exit on the left,that's when you'll see the dealership. By that time,it's too late to make a turn into the dealership and that's why the 15 ft.works as opposed to the smaller one,because of that and the screening. Ms.Harrington said you can't take the smaller sign and just bring it down? Mr.D'Angelo said no,I can't. I wish I could. Mr.Winick said I think Tom's point is well taken. We can say no to all of these signs. It certainly is in our power. The fact that Acura has a dealer identification program is irrelevant to us. What you do have here,and it may require the Acura dealer or whomever,to fabricate a sign of a different size. I think you certainly have the power to choose something other than these signs. I have a different concern. We have a car dealer talking about sight lines. What the heck do we know. Mr.Winick said I feel it's important for the Board if it called for me to make a judgement based on it,I certainly would want to go back now because it's come up and take a look at it. Mr.Wexler said this has to go to the Board of Architectural Review,also? Both Mr.Carpaneto and Mr.D'Angelo said yes. Mr.Wexler said we should not be concerned about what the sign looks like,since we have a body that's going to review the aesthetics of the sign. We shouldn't put ourselves in place of the Board of Architectural Review. I think we should hold off until we get their review and findings. Mr.Gordon said the Board of Architectural Review referred us to you. After some discussion,Mr.Carpaneto said the initial application was referred. Mr.Gordon said they would not hear it until we appeared before the Zoning Board. Mr.Gunther said because they don't have jurisdiction,because you can build 15 ft.sign. After further discussion, Mr. Gunther asked, do the other signs that have been there to date by the driveway,will they remain? Mr.D'Angelo asked the enter and exit signs,to which Mr.Gunther said yes. Mr.D'Angelo said yes,but they the color will the same,blue. Mr.D'Angelo said initially that's going to happen down the road. The existing signs will remain,other than instead of being red enter and exit,it will be blue the same color of the sample color. Mr.Gunther said it's the same color and asked,will the logo go on there. Zoning Board February 26,2002 • Page 18 Mr.D'Angelo said no,the logo will not go on there. Those will be strictly directional signs,so in order for us to make everything continuity,I'm not going to have one blue sign and the rest red. I'll make everything the blue. Mr.Gunther said with regards to your property,when someone comes to visit you obviously if they can't go in driveway they basically drive away. Can they also enter and park on Harrison Drive? Mr.D'Angelo said no,they cannot park on Harrison Drive. Mr.Gunther asked on your property on the front of Harrison Drive. Mr.D'Angelo said from Harrison Drive you get to the rear. There are two levels of dealership. there's an upstairs showroom which you'll enter on Palmer Avenue where the enter and exit sign is. That will be the showroom traffic. It's one way in and one way out. The entrance into the parts department or service department is to the rear on Harrison Drive and then they would come out through the exit sign on Palmer Avenue. It will be sort of a loop. Mr.Gunther said so if you're having service you go through Harrison Drive and come out onto Palmer Avenue. Mr.D'Angelo said that's correct. Mr.Gunther said and if you're coming for the showroom,you in through Palmer Avenue. Mr.D'Angelo said yes,where the enter/exit sign is. Mr.Wexler said you definitely need a sign for service. People coming should know where they're going for service. Mr.D'Angelo said you need that directory sign. We don't need a big sign. After some discussion,Mr.D'Angelo said I understand the constraints that the Board is under. I'm really looking to replace what I have existing there now and looking really to enhance the sign and keep it with the flow of the property,because we do pride ourself with taking care of that. Mr.Gordon said we've been very good neighbors since 1986. Mr.Gunther said I think what I would like to do is take another look in terms of the line of sight coming up Palmer Avenue from New Rochelle. Mr.Gordon said he has some pictures of the area. I don't know if they're really helpful to you. Mr.D'Angelo said the other issue there is sight line is important,but also the other issue is that we don't want to have to have a traffic problem on Palmer Avenue with people coming to the dealership and then, because the way the building is setback, that they would pass it and then start to make "U"tutus on Harrison Drive. Mr.Gunther said I certainly understand that. We're not looking to create either a traffic problem or inhibit anyone from getting out of your business. Obviously if you want a Town to be a good place to do © business,signage is very important. What I want to do is I want to take another look from Palmer Avenue in New Rochelle looking toward Larchmont where the property is to get a sense,and maybe I'll just need to drive down the street a couple of times and stop. Mr.Wexler said how many times do you go down Palmer Avenue. Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 19 Mr.Gunther said a zillion times. Mr.Wexler said in your sight you would see it every time,you know exactly where it is,it blends in. Mr.Winick said that's an ugly sign,that red sign. Mr.Gunther said we have an opportunity to enhance it. Mr.Wexler asked,how does one enhance it? Is it making it a better sign,is it making it smaller? I just want you to understand. Is it a smaller sign,a lower sign,enhance it? After further discussion,Ms.Harrington said lower it. Mr.Gordon said then no sign is better than this sign. Ms. Harrington said the small monument sign I think is more tasteful. It doesn't detract from the neighborhood. That's just my opinion. Ms.Harrington said I know it doesn't impact our decision,but does the Village of Larchmont have a sign law now. Are they going to have the opportunity to approve this signage when an applicant comes in after to replace a sign? Mr.Gunther said we only have jurisdiction over the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr.Harrington said I understand that,but what I'm saying is,people go into the Village to put up a new sign. In other words,we're going to grant or not grant a variance for our law,but if we're to grant a variance and let this 15 ft.sign go up and then the Village of Larchmont change their laws to make them lower,someone comes in for an application there and they're boxed in because we've allowed this 15 ft. sign and their applicant says well you've got a 15 ft. sign and it's up. Somewhere along the line, somebody has to start. Mr. Carpaneto said the signs would have to come back here every two years in accordance with the variance. It has a two-year life. In the event that that did happen,they're going to be back here in two years for the sign. Ms.Harrington said that's my concern. One municipality said yes,one says no and then they change their minds. Mr.Wexler said this picture they designed is a very deceiving picture. If you're trying to take sight line, you're in the wrong lane. You're going east and should be going west. Mr.Gordon said that was taken just to show you the sign on the gas station. After some discussion among Board members,Mr.Wexler said you want to take another look at it. Mr. Gunther said what I would like to do is to adjourn the application,not make a decision and have another look on the street. Mr.Gunther asked,can we have that sign brochure? Mr.D'Angelo said he might have a photocopy. Mr.Gunther said that's fine. Mr.Wexler asked how many dealership Acura has. Mr.D'Angelo said in the country,243. Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 20 O Mr.Wexler said is there any cost for redesign of this? Mr.D'Angelo said they have not. Each entity is on to itself. Some might choose the 121/2 to 12 ft. However,the way it's structured if you choose the 12 ft.,then naturally the sign itself is much larger. Mr.Wexler said I'm saying redesign other than what's presented in the brochure. Mr.D'Angelo said no. Not one yet. Mr.Gunther said interesting it should also be noted that on the sign brochure for Acura, 15 ft.is not a monument sign. It's a pylon sign. Mr.Gunther asked what's the difference between a pylon sign and a pole sign. After some discussion among board members,Mr.Gunther asked if there are any questions or comments from the public on this application. Nancy Seligson said I have a question about when it goes to the BAR. Obviously,I heard that it already went to the BAR and then was referred to you,the Zoning Board. Mr. Gunther said what they have done is they want us to be the Lead Agency, so will make a determination as to the size of the sign. QMs.Seligson said and then it will be referred to them. Mr.Gunther said right,because the Town Sign Law which the Town Board in their infinite wisdom,set a limit of such signs to be 6 ft.in height. In this instance,the applicant is coming to us because he wants something larger than 6 ft. That's where zoning comes in to grant a variance or not. Then it goes back to BAR, Are the colors right? Is the placement right? Mr.Wexler asked,is it the monument sign's limit to 6 ft.or is that the maximum height of any sign? Mr.Carpaneto said the monument sign. Mr.Wexler said what if you don't have a monument sign,you have a pole sign. Mr. Carpaneto said you can allow a directory sign,such as the CVS sign which is 14 ft.,so it's even higher than a pole sign. After some discussion,Ms.Gallent said pole signs aren't allowed and directory signs can be 14 ft. Mr.Wexler asked how it's supported. Mr.Carpaneto said on a pole. The directory sign has the tenants located on the sign. No more than 8 sq. ft.per tenant. After further discussion,Mr.Gunther asked if there are any other questions Board members. There were none. O Mr.Gunther then asked if there were any questions or comments from the public on this application. There were none. On a motion made by Mr.Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,it was unanimously Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 21 RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing of application#7,case#2493 be,and hereby is,adjourned to the next Zoning Board meeting,as the Board members do not have any objections. Mr.Gordon asked if there is a date set for that meeting. Mr.Gunther said yes there is. It's Thursday,April 4,2002. Mr.D'Angelo said I can send you a copy if you want. Mr.D'Angelo thanked the Board for their time. Mr. Gunther said the Zoning Board normally meet on the fourth Wednesday of every month. But in looking at the calendar there are a few holidays in March,so the meeting has been moved to the next week on a Thursday at 7:45 p.m. Mr.D'Angelo thanked the Board very much. Mr.Gunther asked if anyone is here for Stephen Koch. No one was present. Mr.Gunther asked if there were any Minutes to review. Ms.Roma said there are no Minutes to review. Mr.Gunther said we set our date for the next meeting. Q Ms.Seligson said I just wanted to report on the notification procedures. You might remember that we had advised you of some of our efforts to change the notification procedures for the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. The Town attorney,Bill Maker,drew up a proposal that went to the Planning Board. I didn't know whether you had received it yourselves. It was a narrative formal memo and I asked you for your comments in written form. However,when you and I last spoke,Tom,you had said that the Zoning Board basically had agreed upon the proposed notification procedure changes as it was generated really from their Board. Ms.Seligson said so I let them know that that was the change. However,the Planning Board at their last meeting,did have extensive comments and disagreement with some of the proposals so tomorrow night we have a Town Board meeting. I'm not even quite sure whether it's going to be on our agenda for our next session to do the library budget meeting,but it will be on our next Town Board agenda which will be next week to actually discuss it and we really have to discuss their comments. Mr.Wexler asked if the Town Board hearing is a public hearing tomorrow night? Ms.Seligson said yes. Mr.Wexler asked are you going to be discussing the FAR law tomorrow night? Ms.Seligson said it's not on our agenda,but we have been discussing in work sessions. We have had many discussions about it. Mr.Wexler said no public hearing though. Mr. Seligson said no,no pubic hearing. We have a couple of work sessions on the library budget tomorrow. That's what our work session will concentrate on. Mr.Gunther asked,is it possible to get a copy of the proposal and comments before your meeting? Ms.Seligson said absolutely the proposal. Ms.Gallent said I got it in my packet. Zoning Board February 26,2002 Page 22 Mr.Wexler asked is this the notification proposal? Ms.Seligson said yes. As we discussed,it said the Zoning Board was in agreement with this,but Bill Maker did feel he would like to get your comments in writing. Mr.Carpaneto said what I'll do is I'll send it out and say we would like your comments. Ms.Seligson said I wrote it up and gave it to the Town Board. Ms.Seligson asked Arthur,do you want to ask me another question on that? Mr.Wexler said on what,the FAR? Ms.Seligson said or the notification. Mr.Wexler said no,but don't leave tonight because I want to ask you something after. Ms.Seligson said O.K. Mr.Gunther said yes sir,to a gentleman in the audience. A gentleman in the audience said my name Philip Joseph. I reside at 5 Overlook Terrace in Larchmont. Mr.Joseph said you have an application for a variance for a Dr.Stephen Koch of 42 North Chatsworth. I came here in the event that he was going to go forward with his variance.However,I am happy to report that Dr.Koch has bought a house at 60 Beach Avenue and now he doesn't need the variance,because the application is to be signed and the contracts are going forward. I was protecting my interests,became in the event that he wanted to keep 42 North Chatsworth,he might say well if you guys give me a variance that will make my house more valuable. I can assure you,I heard Sunday that he is not going through with the variance. Mr.Carpaneto said I haven't got anything in writing for the Board,but I'm sure we'll get it in writing. Mr.Joseph said thank you very much. Mr.Joseph said I want to thank you all for a year or two ago allowing my wife to have the deck on the back of the house. It made my life better. Thank you very much. Mr.Gunther said,Mr.Joseph,what you may want to do since we don't have any notice of Dr.Koch going one way or the other you may want to mark your calendar because our next meeting is April 4,2002. We will call the application again. We will not send any notice to you. Mr.Wexler said looking at the site plan,they're asking for a variance from the rear yard where the garage is. How did that become the rear yard and not the major rear opposite the street. Mr.Carpaneto said I have to look at it,Arthur. After some discussion,Mr.Wexler said it's a five-sided lot. Mr.Carpaneto said,but you realize they have to do something to the garage? Ms.Gallent suggested that Mr.Wexler and Mr.Carpaneto discuss this later. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There was no discussion on previous Zoning Board Minutes. Zoning Board February 26, 2002 40 ' Page 23 NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on April 4, 2002. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. 7)/ - Margueri�, Recording Secretary 111