Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002_04_10 Planning Board Minutes • MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK APRIL 10,2002,IN THE COURT ROOM,TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK,NEW YORK Present: Marilyn S.Reader,Chairwoman Robert A.Cohen C.Alan Mason Edmund Papazian Absent: May W.Aisen Edward Z.Jacobson Also Present: Judith M.Gallent,Counsel Ronald A.Carpaneto,Director of Building Antonio V.Capicotto,Consulting Engineer Elizabeth Paul,Environmental Coordinator Nancy Seligson,Liaison Denise M.Carbone,Public Stenographers Carbone&Associates,Ltd. • 111 N.Central Park Avenue Hartsdale,New York 10530 Marguerite Roma,Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Marilyn Reader at 8:10 p.m. Ms.Reader informed those present that the Board is going to discuss the Elimination of McMansion Law last and take care of the applications first. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms.Reader said that the draft Minutes of February 13,2002 could not be reviewed,because there are not enough people present this evening who were present at that meeting. Dr.Mason asked Ms.Roma if more people will be coming. Ms.Reader said Mr.Jacobson may be coming. Ms.Roma said Mr.Jacobson may come,but said that he may be late. On a motion made by Mr.Cohen,seconded by Dr.Mason,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared open. The Public Stenographer was present for this meeting and her transcript will become a permanent part of this record. Ms.Reader read the application as follows: Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING-SPECIAL PERMIT-Trader Joe's East,Inc.-1262 Boston Post Road-Block 407,Lot 192 Donald S.Mazin,1415 Boston Post Road,Larchmont,New York,said he is present to represent Trader Joe's. Trader Joe's has come before the Board to renew a Special Permit to operate a high quality unique grocery store. I think they've been a good addition to the municipality. They have the existing permit. There's no construction or change of footage to take place at any time. There have been no violations. They are willing to adhere to the same hours of operation,8:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.,seven days a week. They've been good tenants,they're good people to have in the community and I ask the Board to renew their Special Permit. Ms.Reader asked Mr.Carpaneto if there were any violations of record on Trader Joe's. Mr.Carpaneto said no. Ms.Reader asked if there were any questions from anyone on the Board. There were none. Ms.Reader asked if there were any questions from anyone in the public. Mr.Mazin said I just want to point out that Craig McLaughlin,the manager,is present. Ms. Reader asked if anyone else, besides Mr. McLaughlin as well, who wishes to speak on this application? There was no comment. Ms.Reader asked if there were any further comments from my professional staff. There were none. On a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Mr.Cohen,it was unanimously RESOLVED,that the Public Hearing be,and hereby is,declared closed. On a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Ms.Reader,the following resolution was unanimously APPROVED: WHEREAS,Trader Joe's East,Inc.submitted an application for a Special Use Permit Renewal for use of the premises at 1262 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407,Lot 192 to operate a store for the sale of goods at retail;and WHEREAS,a Public Hearing having been held on April 10,2002 pursuant to notice;and WHEREAS, the Proposed Action is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and MEQRA, see 6 N.Y.C.R.R.§§617.4 and 617.5;Town of Mamaroneck Code§§92-7(A)and(B),and the Planning Board previously issued a Negative Declaration. WHEREAS,the Planning Board previously granted Site Plan approval; WHEREAS,the Planning Board having considered the application for a Special Use Permit Renewal,the plans and zoning report and environmental analysis submitted by the applicant,comments and responses to questions by the applicant,the reports and comments of the Consulting Engineer to the Town and having heard interested members of the public; NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that this Board makes findings of fact as follows: 1. The proposed use as limited by the conditions set forth herein is in general harmony with the surrounding area and shall not adversely impact upon the adjacent properties due to Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 3 traffic generated by said use or the access of traffic from said use onto or off of adjoining streets. 2. The operations in connection with the Special Use Permit Renewal will be no more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise,fumes,vibrations,flashing of lights or other aspects than would be the operations of any other permitted use not requiring a Special Use Permit Renewal. 3. The proposed Special Use Permit Renewal use will be in harmony with the general health,safety and welfare of the surrounding area by the nature of its particular location. It will not adversely impact upon surrounding properties or surrounding property values. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that this Board APPROVES the application of Trader Joe's East,Inc. for a Special Use Permit Renewal for a high quality grocery store subject to the following terms and conditions: 1. The hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.daily. 2. Permit shall expire after two(2)years. 3. This Special Use Permit Renewal is subject to the termination requirements set forth in Section 240-64 and 240-65 and the use restrictions set forth in Section 240-30 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr.Mazin thanked the Board. Ms.Reader read the next application as follows: CONSIDERATION-SPECIAL PERMIT-Nordone&Sons Auto Body,Inc.-2430 Boston Post Road- Block 503,Lot 421 Donald S.Mazin, 1415 Boston Post Road,Larchmont,New York,addressed the Board. He said he is here as the attorney for Nordone&Sons Auto Body,Inc. They're here to obtain a Special Permit. My client has purchased the premises which is known as 2430 Boston Post Road. It was purchased as recently as February. He intends to take over the operation of the premises. These premises go back for about fifty years as an automobile use. It was Ritacco's Glass,A.P.Auto,Tedesco Auto Body,Jack's Miracle Repair,and Collision Lube and Tube. There has been body shops,repair shops,you name it,it's been there. It's also next to an auto washing booth. Ms.Reader asked what is the name of the auto wash? Mr.Mazin said High Tech. Nordone is right next to that. Mr.Mazin said my client is going to take over the entire level. Before you had two operations,a body shop below and a repair shop above. Mr.Mazin pointed out the location of Jack's Miracle,which is in front and said that they have no moved downstairs. Mr.Mazin said you have photographs of the place,also. Mr.Mazin said in this particular instance we don't have to worry about parking,because we have the same owner we used to have in the past. There is an agreement between the two tenants in which they have their parking. So,we have parking throughout the entire premises for the operation. Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 4 Mr.Mazin said my client is interested in having his auto body repair shop business going there. In the future,he intends to work on repairs and possibly put in glass,but this is all related to automotive use. There hours of operation which exists right now are from 7:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m. My clients are prepared to accept those hours. There will be no outside audible noises. He's not going to put in any loud speakers. These were basically the conditions we bad last time and he's prepared to honor those conditions. Ms.Reader said I don't have a copy of the current concerns. Mr.Mann said I have a copy of the two resolutions which set forth conditions,if you'd like to see them. Ms.Reader asked for copies of the currently existing Special Permit for whatever company it is or was for the next meeting. I remember it was very specific. Mr.Mazin said he has copies of those,if you want to look at it. Dr.Mason asked Mr. Carpaneto if there has been any changes in regulations when something like this would operate,since the last time? We're playing with the same deck really. Mr. Carpaneto said there had been a couple of issues with the other owner, but to the best of my knowledge everything worked out. They were having problems with noise,starting a little bit early and also some outside lighting problems,which have been resolved. Ms.Reader said those were the specific issues and possible light issues,but the code hasn't changed. Mr.Carpaneto said no. Ms.Reader said I just looking at this,it says,"no repairs requiring breakdown of the motor,transmission or universal joint shall be permitted." Mr.Mazin said the same conditions. Mr.Cohen asked what the other permanent set conditions are. Ms.Reader said,"there shall be no externally audible public address system,bullhorns or walkie-talkies. All lights,except for security lighting,shall be turned off when the premises are vacated for the evening." Ms.Reader said I guess we'll just have to extend it,because the applicant shall be bound as successor to Collision Tech,to the agreement dated December, 1990. Mr.Mann said that had to do with parking and other items. We don't need that,because we have a single owner now. Ms.Reader continued saying,"the applicant agrees to provide and maintain the pollution control services and activities as set forth in a memorandum from the Coastal Zone Management Commission." Ms.Gallent said we don't know...inaudible. After further discussion,Mr.Capicotto said doesn't the first condition that you mentioned involve repairs? Mr.Mazin said there's one for repairs and there's one for auto body that was put in both,so they wouldn't break it down and work on the electricals and break down the transmission. Ms.Reader asked if there is an oil,water separator. Mr.Mazin said a separator does exist there. • r Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 5 Ms.Reader asked if it's operative. Mr.Mazin said yes. Dr.Mason said I think that was put in four or five tenants ago. Ms.Reader said I remember,but I don't know when it was put in. I just want to make sure it's still working. Mr.Mazin said I think there are two of them,so that's working. In addition as I said,my client is well experienced in auto body and car related. I believe he is planning to do a lot of nice things to the building. I'll be able to talk to you about that next time I appear. Ms.Reader said my first reaction also was about the neighbors in the community,the last time you came to us. Mr.Mazin said basically the only problem they had was that one of the prior owners put his boats in there and he would try to repair the boats. Then he had two big motors which would cause some noise and the neighbors objected. The neighbor who objected has moved away. My client intends to speak to the neighbors anyhow,because he intends to clean up the back,put up a fence,take away the fenders and the bodies of cars. Also,he's done a little planting already. I think he'll be a good neighbor and a good addition. Mr.Cohen asked,did you say that he owns both shops now,upstairs and downstairs? Mr.Mazin said yes,all premises, so there's one owner now. We don't have to worry about making arrangements for parking between the two shops. Dr.Mason asked what the square footage is. Mr.Mazin said 10,950 sq.ft. Mr.Cohen asked,there are no recent complaints? Mr. Carpaneto said the latest complaint is probably three or four months ago. To the best of my knowledge,it's been ironed out between the owner at that time and the neighbor right behind them. Ms.Reader asked,do you know what the complaint was about? Mr.Carpaneto said lighting,starting early or they may have been working a little bit late. Ms.Reader asked,the lighting being exterior? Mr.Carpaneto said the lighting on the back of the building was shining after certain hours and he was supposed to turn them off. He was leaving lights on,because he was working late at night. Ms.Reader said maybe you can just give us a recent rundown of what they are that may prompt us to do a particular condition. Mr.Mazin said I think you've covered those conditions. They're definitely in there. As I said,we have an owner in there. I thank the Board. Mr.Mazin asked the owner to come up and introduce himself to the Board. Mr.Mazin introduced Mr. Sam Nardone. He's already making a lot of nice improvements to the premises,so I think you're going to be well satisfied. Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 6 Mr.Cohen asked,how long have you been operating there? Mr.Mazin said he has not yet been operating. That's the reason we're before the Board for a Special Permit. Ms.Reader asked,where have you been before? Mr.Nardone said right now I'm in New Rochelle. I've been there for five years. Before that I was in the Tuckahoe,the Bronx and Scarsdale. Mr.Mazin asked,does anybody have any questions? There being none,he thanked the Board and asked what is the date of the next meeting. Ms.Reader said I'll schedule this for a public hearing at the May 8,2002 Planning Board meeting. Ms.Gallent said this should be referred to the Westchester County Planning Board and the Costal Zone Management Commission. Ms.Reader called the next matter. REFERRAL FROM TOWN BOARD-Elimination of McMansion Law(adjourned 3/13/02) Nancy Seligson,council person on the Town board,addressed the Board. Ms.Seligson said the Town has heard a lot of complaints from citizens throughout the Town about tear- downs of existing houses and new,very large,out of character,doesn't fit in the neighborhood,it's leaning over my yard type houses going up,as well as expansions where someone has purchased a house that has been accepted in the community for years and then is putting on a very large expansion. All of those fit in with our current zoning laws and floor area ratios. As I'm sure you've all seen in the newspapers and are well aware,it is a regional phenomena. It's a time when many very large,out of scale homes are springing up throughout the County and upsetting a lot of the already existing homeowners in the community. So,we thought we would try and take a stab at somehow protecting the character of the community. We asked Frank Fish,our consultant in land use matters,to take a look at the floor to area ratios and to make some suggestions as to how we could,through changing or amending our zoning law, protect ourselves and the community character and restrict the sizes of these houses or the perceived bulk of them. Ms.Seligson said we realized pretty quickly that even with changing the FAR to a very restrictive number, you still can end up with large homes,out of scale or out of proportion homes to the others in that area. We thought even if we decrease the FAR number,which would restrict them in some sense,how else could we coordinate them with the community? How else could we fit it in,so these houses make sense without being too restrictive. That's when Bill Maker,our creative Town Attorney,suggested that we include a measure which is included in here,to base the amount of expansion or the size a house on a certain lot could be with two factors;(1)with a different FAR number then already exists;and(2)if that was too restrictive,to allow the applicant or homeowner to look at the average size of homes within either a 100 ft. radius of the proposed site or a 200 ft. radius dependent on the zoning area to give them some flexibility. We thought that would be an interesting way to try and relate the home or application to the community in that area. Ms.Seligson said so what you have in front of you is a proposed law. I agree we should change the name of it. In the Local Law it's known as the Elimination of McMansions,but maybe it should be the Law to Eliminate McMansions. I don't know how familiar you are with FAR as a concept,but the difference, the twist in this particular law, is using this average of the other homes in the area and using this comparison distance. We are making a suggestion of 200 ft.in the 15,000,10,000 and 7,500 ft.zoning � r Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 7 lots and 100 ft.in the others in that R-6 Zone. The comparison parcels to be comprised are ones that abut the property within that 100 ft.or 200 ft.from elements their property abuts that or touches the property. Ms.Seligson said it does exempt those that are in a different zoning district. It wouldn't be considered as a comparison parcel. The floor area ratios are given on the second page of the law. In the R-50 district,using the FAR of.15 translates into a 7,500 square foot house. Ms.Reader asked,is that a total or a footprint? Ms.Seligson said that's total footage,not footprint. Footprint is lot coverage. Ms.Reader said you're saying that total interior space is going from a previous 35,000 sq.ft.down to a maximum of 7,500 sq.ft.? Mr.Capicotto said does square footage include basement space? Ms.Seligson said it doesn't include the basement,if it's not finished. If it's finished and a liveable space, it then translates into including it. Dr.Mason said it sounds like you're limiting yourself to allow little ticky,tacky houses. What's that going to do to your tax rate? Ms.Seligson said I don't think we thought that a 7,500 sq.ft.house is ticky,tacky. Mr.Altieri said,in the R-50 Zone right now you don't have a law,except for these huge homes that are being built. You don't have a lot of homes over 7,500 sq.ft. Dr.Mason said including the basement and attic? Mr.Altieri said only if it's finished,that's when it gets included. If the basement is used for storage or nonhabitable use,it's not included in the calculation. Ms.Gallent asked what the rationale is for including basement space. Mr.Cohen said if you have a giant playroom of finished space and there's no visual impact,why would you include that? Ms.Gallent said it's unusual to include underground area in FAR. Mr.Altieri said that's a point to consider. Ms.Seligson said that was brought up at the Zoning Board the other night and just from you bringing it up, I would agree. It doesn't change the bulk of the house, so maybe that's something you would exclude. Dr.Mason said that's garage floor,the garage space,is that correct? Mr.Alfieri said garages will not be included. Ms.Gallent said,doesn't it say all buildings on the lot? Mr.Alfieri said yes,the garage would be included. Ms.Seligson said it would,but I wondered would it be included if it's just used as storage or services, Mr.Alfieri said that's a point of clarification. Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 8 Ms.Seligson said we'd have to check. We'd have to work it out. Ms.Reader said if it's used as a basement area,it doesn't say garage though. Ms.Seligson said no it doesn't. Ms.Seligson said so maybe we need to expand that definition of work areas in homes. Ms.Reader said I think the consensus may be for me,my rule is not to do basements and attics in your area. I need a little more information. I asked this before. It would be very helpful to me to see renderings,drawings,given an R-10,an R-7.5 or an R-50 to see what would be the size of the house to go to the maximum size you have now and what would be the size of the house using FAR,not the average. Ms.Seligson said I have the square footage figures for what the FAR translates into. Mr.Altieri said how about the houses that were built at Coventry Court. How big are those homes? Mr.Carpaneto said they were set for lot coverage. Mr.Altieri said how big is the square footage. Mr.Carpaneto said those houses are probably in the neighborhood of 8,000 to probably close to 10,000 square feet. Dr.Mason said did you count basements,attics and all that? Mr.Carpaneto said no. Dr.Mason said we're talking about a normal space with an attic,and you're citing 8,000 sq.ft.for houses where that wasn't counted. That's apples and oranges. Mr.Carpaneto said that's right. Mr.Altieri said I don't know if they are finished basements or unfinished basements. Ms.Reader said the ones about which she is thinking do not include the basements and attics. Mr.Carpaneto said I think those basements were unfinished,at the time. Mr.Altieri said so does 8,000 sq.ft.include the basement or not include the basement? Mr.Carpaneto said no. It's still the same floor. After some discussion,Ms.Reader said we can extrapolate from that. Mr.Carpaneto said when the study was done,there were samples taken throughout each zone. There were ten random samples of houses on different streets taken throughout the zones. Ms.Reader said on the house that I am most familiar with,how big is the square footage on that house? Ms.Carpaneto said around 8,000 sq.ft. Ms.Seligson said I would say it's 10,000 ft. for that house,but keep in mind also that although these FAR's translate into certain numbers,if they say I want to go bigger than that,they then look around the neighborhood and that adds up. Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 9 Ms.Reader said my concern is are they still going to be big houses and out of proportion even with this FAR? That's why having a rendition,sonic drawing or rendering from it will be helpful. Ms.Seligson said I wonder how we do that or how we choose the community,area or road to show that. Ms.Reader said take five blocks. Ms.Seligson said and compare them? Ms.Reader said one block in each zone. Ms.Seligson said and show how it would compare to the houses around it? Ms.Reader said on that specific lot,in that R-7.5,R-50,rendered in picture"A". You take a style house, whatever style,and you go lot by lot,picture"A",picture"B",under FAR. Mr.Altieri said we have a timing problem on that. I wish we had known that. Ms.Reader said we discussed this over a year ago. Ms.Altieri said when we sent it out to the Planning Board,nobody asked for that to be done. Ms.Reader said it might be a project for a drawing class in the high school. You might be able to get five done quickly. Mr.Cohen said I have a question from the beginning. I just want to understand the genesis of this. This is a problem. I've seen it in Eastchester,but to tear down some building of bulk houses,is that an existing problem in the Town or just something in existence? Ms.Seligson said no,we've actually had people calling us upset. Mr.Altieri said we have a house up on Country Lane. Dr.Mason said but that would be a worst possible example,making that your rule. Bad cases make bad laws. To look at something that is really an outlandish piece of construction and then try to generalize. After some discussion,Mr.Altieri said you can use Country Lane as an example. Ms.Seligson said we have a tear down on Villa Road. In almost each area,we've had a complaint about some brand new house or some large expansion. Dr.Mason said people don't like change. Anytime you make a change in your neighborhood,some one is going to look out the window and say I don't like this. Ms.Seligson said I think this is more than a change. They are merely saying that this is diminishing their house values, that it's changing the character of the community,and those are things that are widely accepted as what these McMansions are doing to communities. Mr.Altieri said the worst example in Town is probably Colonial and Damon Terrace where they brought in a modular home and literally shoehorned it into the block. That's another example. There are several. Ms.Reader said as you go up to North Chatsworth? Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 10 Mr.Altieri said as you come down Damon Terrace from the Murray Avenue School,make a right onto Colonial. It was kind of a controversial matter where the Zoning Board,because the house is built right up against all the property lines,it stands tall. That's another example in Town. Mr.Carpaneto said from the back of the playground. Mr.Altieri said yes,exactly. Ms.Gallent that the zoning variance they received was only for a small portion of it,the bay window.... they could have built substantially smaller. It's a small variance. Ms.Seligson said because the zoning allows it,exactly. That's what this is trying to get at. Mr.Cohen said,what about on North Chatsworth that prefab modular that was put up. How does this affect that,because that to me is out of character with the rest? Ms.Seligson said,unfortunately,this would not address that. There are a lot of people who feel very strongly about that house. Actually,we had a lot of people come and talk to us at the Town Board about it,but without a residential BAR,Board of Architectural Review,there's really no way to capture any say in that. The Town Board currently feels not at all inclined to create a residential BAR for any reasons and one is actually for that house that we just screwed around. Who are we to say that if you have this lot that you can only build what we think looks good,that's going to cost a lot more money than bringing in your modular house. MS.READER IS SPEAKING;THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THAT CAN'T BE CLEARLY HEARD! Ms.Seligson said that is a very good example of something we currently cannot control,and this would not control it. AGAIN,MS.READER SPOKE,BUT I CAN'T CLEARLY HEAR WHAT SHE'S SAYING! Ms.Seligson said people thought that was a park,part of the park. Not only is it a house that many people object to,it's in a spot that is shocking. Mr.Papazian asked,how did you say you compare houses? I didn't understand that. Is it within a 100 ft.or 200 ft.of the property line? Ms.Seligson said right. Mr.Papazian said in my mind 100 ft.is nothing. It's the house next door. If it's a middle lot,the houses that immediately surround the area and nearly taking into character the community. Ms.Reader said particularly in an R-50 zone. Ms.Seligson said that was 200 ft.in an R-50 Zone. After some discussion,Mr.Papazian said I live in a neighborhood where there is a McMansion and I can understand the need for this law. It encroaches on the neighbor and basically blocks them right out. What I'm afraid of here,and what I see is a law that might be too restrictive for people in that area. Basically, take a look at the comparison chart. You have an R-50 zone which is over an acre and yet you're restricting that house to only 7,500 sq.ft.including the basement. Even if this wasn't including basements, I'd have a hard time with that in this particular neighborhood as opposed to it if it was in Bedford or Somers,something with a lot more spacing and you have different issues there. It looks to me,looking Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 11 at that and looking at the R-30 zone also,that's a lot that's three-quarters of an acre and you're restricting it to a 6,000 sq.ft.house. Ms.Seligson said that's what we want to hear. It sounds to me like you're saying especially in those two zones that this would be too restrictive. Mr.Papazian said I,like Ms.Reader,have a problem. With the bigger houses,I can visualize that. With the smaller zone sizes I have a hard time visualizing,looking at the R-7.5 zone,in a 3,000 sq.ft.house. Ms.Seligson asked,do you think it would be helpful to have some examples of house sizes in all of the zones,an R-50 zone,however many houses we need to look at? This is the square footage currently and then in each zone to give some examples of square footage? Mr.Papazian said I don't know what you want. Basically if I had an opinion on this law,I think it's too restrictive the way I see it. To me it wouldn't make any difference what it came in with,because I see it as too narrow. Mr.Carpaneto said do you think it's because we're adding the basement? Mr.Papazian said I think that that is definitely a problem,because I know basements in the larger houses can be just as big as the bottom floor. You're taking the away,on a 7,500 sq.ft.house,2,500 sq.ft.for the basement alone. I have problems with that. Ms.Reader said I need to understand something. She asked what zone the Coventry properties are in. Mr.Carpaneto said I believe R-30. Ms.Reader said the zone coverage for 8,000 sq.ft.and 10,000 sq.ft.down to 6,000 sq.ft. I'm not sure I know what a 6,000 sq.ft.house looks like. Ms.Reader said my recommendation would be that you don't include basements. Mr.Papazian said a 6,000 sq.ft.house is four or five fairly decent size bedrooms. After some discussion,Mr.Carpaneto said it would be a house 40 ft.by 50 ft. Ms.Readers said but I think 6,000 sq. ft.is the live-in quarters. The real live-in quarters,might be sufficient. I'm not sure that I agree with Mr.Papazian that I think it's too restrictive,if you take out the basements and the attics. Ms.Seligson said I just wanted to ask you if you knew the square footage of your own homes,because that's helpful if you know the square footage of your own home. Then you can extrapolate from there. Mr.Carpaneto said you still have room to increase with the FAR. Those are samples. There were ten pages in each zone,whether or not those basements are finished with permits or not. If they're finished without a permit we don't know that,but we included that in the factor of being an unfinished basement affect. There was still room in those samples to add on a couple,300,400,500 ft. Dr.Mason said in answer to your question,my house looks like a bungalow from the front. Marguerite can tell you that. The front of my house is just like a bungalow. If you include the basement and the attic or the basement in that,it's a 7,500 sq.ft.house and it's nowhere near a 7,500 sq.ft.house. Mr.Carpaneto asked,are you 5,000 sq.ft.without the basement? Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 12 Dr.Mason said yes. I'm just 2,400 sq.ft.on each level. The house was built actually on five levels, because it's staggered. You would round that off to three levels and then it has a tandem garage,one behind the other. It looks like a little,tiny house,but it would be too big for the lot according to your law. Ms.Seligson said I had a small house on Flint Avenue in Larchmont,but I have subsequently moved. It was the cutest house on Flint Avenue in Larchmont. It was 1,800 sq.ft.,and we owned a three bedroom house. Ms.Reader said I think my calculation was wrong,because I have a four bedroom house. Mr.Altieri said Scarsdale just adopted a similar law. They went through this whole exercise of could you build it bigger if you somehow masked the size and it became incredibly controversial,because of all the architectural nuances and again people telling people how to build a home. What they did come up with is,I don't know the exact text of the law,including the basement if it was underground. He said Dr. Mason can look at the intro....underground from the front versus what you see from the back. Dr.Mason said the window well is in the front and graded the back. Mr. Altieri said we may have to work on how we define that,but it may be a way of including the basement back in to pickup the numbers a little bit based on what we're hearing tonight. Ms.Reader asked,do we still have a height limit? Mr.Carpaneto said yes,we have a zoning height,21 stores. Ms.Seligson said that's another issue that this is not addressing. That's a ridge line building issue,and that's a separate issue that they might address. Ms.Reader said I actually thought the alternative of average was ideal. It strikes me as fair. If in fact houses tend to be bigger in that community then the FAR would allow,then you're not out of character. Mr.Cohen said I don't think we have enough feet. When we look into taking it up 100 ft.or 200 ft.to me is not enough of a neighborhood. Ms.Seligson said a comparison distance. Mr.Carpaneto said I think the thought there was to compare what happened on County Lane,to have two houses that are ranches,let's say,and then you can come in and build your 21/2 story house there. Dr.Mason asked,do you want the houses to look all alike? Mr.Cohen said suppose you do have two ranches and you want to build a large house in the middle. Why should that be prohibitive,because you chose to a ranch? Ms.Gallent said it's to protect the neighborhood. Mr.Cohen said you're really only protecting those two neighbors. Ms.Reader said I thought you said the square footage was the same? Ms.Seligson said right,the square footage is the same. Ms.Reader said,but people have different tastes. Ms.Seligson said,but we're not regulating it. Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 13 Mr.Altieri said the average isn't going to be based on height,it's going to be based on square footage. You can have two ranches and a Colonial in the middle. Ms.Seligson said and they can build whatever they want. Mr.Carpaneto said it's not stopping that. Ms.Seligson said I just want to make a quick point to what Dr.Mason said. I went to the Long Island Sound Alliance Conference on Saturday. James Kuntzler the author of Geography of Nowhere spoke. He's a very provocative,entertaining speaker. He did show in very stark,visual examples of photographs, that there is nothing wrong with houses looking the same if they are designed well and proportioned well. I'm not saying that we should live in Levittown,because I wouldn't say that those houses were designed or proportioned well. I'm just pointing out that design and proportion really are what we react to,more than anything. We're not saying that things should be exactly the same. This law certainly wouldn't even provoke that,because you can do whatever you want with this size whether it's one floor,two floors,two and one-half,however you do it. Ms.Capicotto asked,who would make the determination when your house doesn't meet the first criteria and you look to be outside to the perimeter properties? Ms.Seligson said the law says that you have that opportunity to do it. Right now the Building Department will provide them with the sizes of surrounding properties, comparison parcels. They can have their . architect,engineer,any professional certify that they did it. Ms.Gallent said or the applicant can do it,unless there's a dispute about what should be included. Ms.Seligson said I actually wanted to ask Steve and Ron,because it says if the Building Department doesn't have enough information they then have to go to the assessor's office to get that information. Why don't they just go to the assessor's office to begin with,if that's a more thorough volume of information? Mr.Altieri said it's particularly for administrative ease,in trying to keep people from bouncing around hopefully. Ms.Seligson said,I understand,I wrote down all your comments. You,of course,are asked to write comments to us about it,but I'm happy to convey what we've discussed tonight and anything else that comes up. Ms.Seligson asked Ms.Reader,do you still feel that you'd like to see rendering? Ms.Reader said I think that would be very helpful to me. Just give me R-30,R-15,R-7.5,take a lot and just give us an example. Dr.Mason said you have architects in the Town who are designing houses all over the place. They may even be able to pull something out of their CADS,a computer system drawing file,and give you what you're looking for just like they've done over the years. Ms.Reader said maybe they can do it by computer now. Mr.Cohen asked,can we revisit this next month? Ms.Seligson said that's what I'm worried about. The law is 45 days and since we had such a lengthy meeting last time,we got pushed to the back of the agenda. I wanted to go before that. Mr.Altieri said we can provide renderings just for your information. Ms.Reader asked,does anyone else want to decide now? Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 14 Dr.Mason said yes. Mr.Cohen said at the very least,I want the basement excluded. I'm still not comfortable that even with that,we're not downsizing too much. I don't have a sense. I'm uncomfortable. I don't know how to get that sense. He said I think Dr.Mason is trying to come up with a way to give comfort and understanding. Ms.Reader said it has to be seen on the whole lot. If you just show us a house and it's not in proportion to the house and the lot,it's not going to be meaningful. • Ms.Seligson said,does this mean a field trip? Mr.Capicotto said if the house is very deep,it may appear smaller. A wide,narrow house would appear much bigger. Mr.Cohen asked,would a field trip help? Ms.Seligson said I was just going to ask you whether you think it would help. Ms.Reader said how do we know what it looks like? Ms.Seligson said this is a 3,000 sq.ft.house,this is a 5,000 sq.ft.house,this is a 7,500 sq.ft.house? Ms.Seligson said Steve and I just discussed that maybe I can just bring back your comments for now and the Town Board will discuss these. Ms.Seligson said we'll talk about renderings or a field trip in some way. I can definitely understand, because you're talking about sizes and proportions that are not in front of you and it's hard to tell other than you know when you see one and you say that shouldn't be there. Ms.Reader said as an example of Coventry,when we approved the site plan,it's not our role and we had no role in terms of how big a house would be there. I was shocked when I drove by and the houses were so big. Dr.Mason said it's a generic footprint. Ms.Reader said it's a zoning rule. We had no role in that. Ms.Seligson said also Marilyn,given what was there before it is really shocking. Mr.Carpaneto said it's a 35,000 sq.ft.lot on some of those lots. Ms.Reader said,I thought you said those were R-30 though. Mr.Carpaneto said no,but some of those lots are large than 30,000 sq.ft. Some of them are 35,000 sq. ft.,37,000 sq.ft.,so at that point that size lot if the FAR is.10 you can build a 3700 sq.ft.house. Ms.Reader said some of these lots may be actually closer to being R-50 you're saying? Mr.Carpaneto said the size lots,their property is better than 30,000 sq.ft.and when that happens you can have an R-10 lot where you have 20,000 sq.ft.and you could build that house to the size of the lot. It doesn't mean that because we have an R-7.5 zone that you're stuck with 7,500 sq.ft. If your lot is 8,000 sq.ft.,then you could build appropriately. Ms.Gallent said as long as you still have coverage. Ms.Seligson said yes exactly. It's uniform. Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 15 Ms.Seligson said I guess I would ask that you then write us a letter,a response to this. I also will write up your comments to be mailed out. Ms.Reader said before we adjourn,just make sure you've covered all the points. Dr.Mason said all I'm saying is that somebody who wants to put that up on the first floor,if he wants to put his workshop on the first floor then I think that's a community service law. Ms.Reader said that's his problem. I wouldn't call it a workshop rule,work ruling or whatever. Mr.Capicotto said we're used to that excuse. Ms. Gallent said but coming to a comparison, 100 ft. and 200 ft.are not large enough to capture the character of the community. Mr.Altieri said to interpret what Judy is saying is you could have one street,if you can carry it out too far,you could destroy the character of one street because of what another street looks like. Dr.Mason said but you've already limited that by not crossing zoning lines. Mr.Altieri said if there's a zoning boundary there. If there is no zoning boundary,then you have the option. Ms.Reader said I understand what Mr.Altieri said. Unless they have a 7.5,you have one block that has small houses,you just turn the corner which might go up to the main street and you want bigger houses. You now have a much bigger house on that street that has smaller houses. Mr. Cohen said I'm interested in the going to point of two houses on 2/3 of an acre. Could you do something like that. Mr.Altieri said expand the distance on the street or something. Dr.Mason said you have some natural barriers in Town,such as the Leatherstocking Trail that are 500 ft.wide and numbers like that. That automatically eliminates,including what is your nearest neighbor or your next to nearest neighbors is not included. Ms.Gallent said if I can summarize the Board's view,you feel that the FAR is too restrictive. Generally they support the concept of downsizing,but feels that the law is too restrictive. Ms.Reader said I'm not sure if I think it's too restrictive. Ms.Gallent said the law may be too restrictive. Mr.Cohen said I'm concerned about that. Dr.Mason said I think it's too restrictive. Mr.Cohen asked,why the code of information. Ms.Seligson said that seems to be the generic term. Katherine Dehais,Costal Zone Liaison,said I simply wanted to say by way of talking about the basements and why that can be relevant,that house you were mentioning earlier you particularly disliked right next to the park as you go up North Chatsworth. The main reason I think why that house appears so massive Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 16 is that from the side the basement is all included above ground. In a case where the basement is visible from streets or however you want to phrase it, if it's a finished basement it is apropos because it's functioning as a full floor. Mr.Cohen said that goes to above grade as Mr.Alfieri said. Ms.Dehais said it could be below grade from the front,but is visible from the back. Mr.Altieri said Dr.Mason commented on that before. Mr.Cohen asked,did you receive more complaints about the Damon/Colonial house or the house on North Chatsworth,because I think to me the house on Damon and Colonial is not offensive. That house at the end of the playground. I'm more offended by the house on North Chatsworth. Mr.Altieri said do you think you're offended by just the style of the house? Mr.Cohen said the style of the house. Mr.Altieri said that's not the issue. The Board received a fair number of inquiries about the house that's going to be built on Villa Road where we considered a tear-down and now to rebuild it. I think that's just another piece of it. You're now going to see tear-down and rebuilt and again it's a regional issue in the County. It's not just Mamaroneck. Ms.Reader said it's a national issue. After further discussion,Mr.Cohen asked Mr.Carpaneto how big is the house going to be that's being built on my block? It's a partial tear-down? Mr.Carpaneto said over 5,000 sq.ft. It's a 42,000 sq.ft.lot. That house could be larger than that. Ms.Gallent asked what zone it is. Mr.Carpaneto said an R-10 zone. There's a big lot there. They'll put their house on the corner of Byron Lane. Mr.Cohen said that's my street. That beautiful stone house,they took down the stone porch. Ms.Seligson said it's a touchy subject,but I want to thank you for entertaining the whole notion of it because I think it's sort of courageous of us to take a stab at it. It is something that's difficult and I think we have to deal with it especially in a community where we have older homes,there's people(given until recently)with a lot of expendable income who feel they want a new house and you're going to see this kind of phenomenon more and more. Dr.Mason said it's the demand. That's the crux of the problem. Is it better to have houses in stock improve? The tax rate will improve. Ms.Reader said it depends on how big it gets. I don't think this is necessarily the limit in having some bigger houses than currently exist. It's whether they're moving big houses. Ms.Seligson said it's your opinion of whether it's bad or not,but the general consensus seems to be. Ms.Reader said I would say that land use planning is also a matter of taste. I accept land use planning as something that is positive. I think there's no need for me in my mind that we should allow houses that seem to be gargantuan from many people's point of view to be ugly that continue to be built. Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 17 Ms.Reader said my only concern is,because I have trouble visualizing,whether this is your benefit you sited or is it going to be too restrictive. Ms.Seligson said there are plenty of built out communities with homes that are very charming and are the most exclusive wonderful places to live and the reason people want to live there is because there's a charm in the community. That's what we're trying to preserve here. Mr.Papazian said I agree with that,but just looking at your proposal you're cutting down a maximum square footage of 35,000 square feet in an R-50 zone to 7,500 sq.ft. I would tend to think a court is going to look at that and say that it's too severe. Ms.Reader said when you said the maximum square footage of the houses,does that include what was impervious. Is that the 35%building. Mr.Altieri said we didn't do that,which is the way some of these laws are written. Ms.Reader said I don't mean our current law says 35%,but that includes all impervious,the roads and everything. When you say the 35,000 doesn't that say all impervious,not just the size of the house? Mr.Altieri and Ms. Seligson said no. We're just saying the house. The tennis courts,the pool,the basketball court is not included. Ms. Reader said then how did you figure out 35,000 as the current square footage. How is that calculated. Ms.Seligson said we have an FAR now and the FAR now is one. Ms.Reader said you went from one to.15. Ms.Seligson said there was no distinction before. There's one for every zone for every area. Ms.Reader said you went from one,1.0 to 1.5. Ms.Seligson said per one zone. Mr.Altieri said we did it in part by looking at the homes that existed today. If you go into the north end of Town,you tend to have a bigger home. The older homes fall within the range that you see here on the chart. Ms.Reader asked,in the Town of Mamaroneck,do you have to do anything that approaches it? Ms.Seligson said no,absolutely not. Probably our biggest house is 10,000/12,000 sq.ft. I forgot about Premium Point. Those houses look like hotels,and those are probably 10,000 to 12,000 sq.ft. Ms.Reader said I'm not sure that I think it's too restrictive,because I think what currently sits there falls within or not only currently exists among the biggest properties falls within these guidelines up until the Coventry type category were built. I think I'm comfortable with it. Ms.Seligson thanked the Board. Mr.Altieri said thank you very much for your help. On a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Ms.Reader,the meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Planning Board April 10,2002 Page 18 NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on May 8,2002. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Dr.Mason,seconded by Ms.Reader,the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 9:15 p.m. ( ?- Marguerite R lna,Recording Secretary