Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998_02_10 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 10, 1998, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick B. Kelleher Jillian A. Martin J. Rene Simon Arthur Wexler Also Present: Kevin Healy, Counsel Ronald A. Carpaneto, Director of Building Michelle Nieto, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:45 p.m. Mr. Gunther informed the Board that the January Board Minutes will be reviewed at the end of the meeting, at which time the public session of the meeting will be adjourned and an Executive Session for Board members only will convene to discuss pending legal matters. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2299 Application of Andrew S. Parets requesting a variance to construct a storage shed. The shed as proposed would be setback 130.0 ft. where 190.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(3)(b)for an accessory structure in an R-20 Zoned Residence District on the premises located at 8 Murdock Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 305 Lot 1154. Andrew Parets, 8 Murdock Road, Scarsdale, appeared. Mr. Parets said he would like to construct a 10 ft. x 12 ft. storage shed in the back yard, which will be set back 130 ft. rather than 190 ft. by code, in the most unobtrusive site on the property adjacent to the pool equipment for storage of pool chemicals and possibly outdoor furniture. Further back in the property is unusable land,wetlands, etc., which has been left undeveloped per recommendation from the environmentalists when the project was put together. The proposed site is the only site left on the property for the proposed use. Pictures were submitted with the application. Mr. Parets reiterated that the shed would be 10 ft. x 12 ft. on a dirt foundation. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Parets would care to make reference to and describe the other features of the property in the back, such as rock, rock outcropping, etc. Mr. Parets said the major outcropping is next to the pool making it impossible to put anything in that area. There is no other space on the property for the proposed shed. The area is well screened and not visible from the street. Mr. Parets referred to the pictures before the Board and commented that the area cannot be seen from any place. Mr. Parets said he realizes the statutes exist to ensure there is no unsightly Zoning Board February 10, 1998 Page 2 structure in existence, and said there is natural screening that exists both on the Paret property and the neighbors' property. Mr. Gunther asked what kind of storage shed Mr. Parets is proposing, and if a picture or rendering was available. Mr. Parets said he did not have a picture or rendering, but the proposed shed is 10 ft. by 12 ft. and looks like a barn. Mr. Wexler asked the height of the proposed shed. Mr. Parets said the proposed shed is 7 ft. 6 in. Ms. Martin asked when the pool was constructed, and where the chemicals are currently stored. Mr. Parets said pool construction started in the fall of'96, and a Certificate of Occupancy was issued in July '97. Chemicals are currently stored in a plastic container, and Mr. Parets would like to store them in an enclosed structure along with outdoor furniture. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Parets considered building an enclosure around the pool, keeping the chemicals within the enclosure. Mr. Parets said that was not considered nor proposed by the architect or builder. A discussion ensued regarding the exposed pool equipment, and the proposed shed. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Mr. Wexler addressed the building inspector stating it is a deep site in an R-20 zone. If it was not a deep site but a regulation site, the proposed shed would be more or less in the rear third of the property. Mr. Carpaneto agreed. Mr. Wexler stated the applicant is burdened by having a big lot. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. There being none, on motion made by Mr. Wexler, 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. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Andrew S. Parets has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a storage shed. The shed as proposed would be setback 130.0 ft. where 190.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-35B(3)(b) for an accessory structure in an R-20 Zoned Residence District on the premises located at 8 Murdock Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 305 Lot 1154; 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 240-35B(3)(b); and Zoning Board February 10, 1998 Page 3 WHEREAS, Andrew S. Parets submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor a detriment to adjacent properties; B. It is a reasonable approach to achieving the applicant's goals; C. The variance requested is not substantial; D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; E. The property is an unusually shaped very deep lot, which caused the applicant to apply for a variance. It has also been demonstrated that the proposed storage structure will be located on the property where screening exists that will soften the construction abutting it into existing shrubbery and trees; F. The variance is only authorizing the request to add a storage shed of the size noted in the application, 10 ft. x 12 ft., with a height of 7 ft. 6 in. No other construction is authorized as a result of this variance; G. The request is in the intent of the actual zoning, that the structure is in the rear of the existing primary structure; H. 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; I. 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; J. 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. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. Zoning Board February 10, 1998 Page 4 2. 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. 3. 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 the applicant to see the building department during regular business hours to obtain the building permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2300 Application of John Hillman requesting a variance to construct a third floor dormer addition. The proposed addition would be located at the 3rd story. Pursuant to Section 240-38D(1)only 22 stories are permitted for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 98 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 20. Michael Csenge, architect, 26 Devonshire Road, New Rochelle, New York appeared representing the applicant. Mr. Csenge said the application is to expand an existing bedroom and bath on the third floor that was created when the dwelling was originally constructed. The applicant is looking to take over the present attic space and convert it into living space expanded through the use of dormers both front and rear. The existing bedroom will be converted into an open study area on the third floor. The project as proposed will have a sprinkler system throughout the entire third floor down through the egress travel and out the door, in accordance with State Codes. Every other zoning criteria is met for the property, the applicant is working within the setbacks and there is no increase in the footprint. Mr. Gunther gave Mr. Csenge a copy of the plans and asked him to explain the proposed plans for the Board. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Carpaneto the definition of 2'h stories in the code, which Mr. Carpaneto provided and Mr. Csenge commented on. Mr. Wexler then stated the reason the applicant is before the Board is because it is a 3 story and not a 21/2 story request, which Mr. Csenge agreed with. Mr. Wexler asked how much area is on the third floor. Mr. Csenge said with the proposed request, the applicant would be over 50 to 75% on the second floor. Mr. Wexler asked if it is a question that comes to the Zoning Board or with the New York State Building Code. Mr. Carpaneto said both. Mr. Csenge said full sprinklers are planned, it is a question that comes to both the Zoning Board and New York State Building Code. The applicant is applying to New York State. A discussion ensued regarding the development of third floor attic spaces with preexisting conditions in homes in the community, a revision in the 1991 State Code allowing same, and the definition of'h story in the Town Code. Mr. Kelleher said even if the applicant did not have to get a variance from the State, he would still have to get a variance from the Town. Zoning Board February 10, 1998 Page 5 ® Mr. Csenge said that once the sprinkler system is installed it will conform and the applicant will not need a variance from the State, even though the applicant has filed with the State. Mr. Kelleher said if a State variance is needed and is not granted, then the granting of the Town permit becomes moot. Mr. Csenge explained the existing layout, existing stairway, existing enclosed bedroom on the rear of the house, existing full bathroom, existing closet and existing attic space. Mr. Csenge then explained the proposal to the Board; i.e. the use of dormers, replace the existing window in the gable that was at some point removed, will have a bedroom approximately 11 ft. by 12 ft.,an open study area and bathroom. Mr. Csenge then discussed the elevations, stating the impact to the front of the house is small. He will be working with existing windows. At the side elevation of the house, the prior existing window will be replaced, there will be a small dormer to the front and a shed dormer to the back and from the rear around the chimney a shed dormer. There is an existing shed dormer which exists over the existing bathroom and space in that area. The materials used would be consistent with the house. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There were none. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, 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 Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, John Hillman has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a third floor dormer addition. The proposed addition would be located at the 3rd story. Pursuant to Section 240-38D(1) only 2' stories are permitted for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 98 Edgewood Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 128 Lot 20; 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 240-38D(1); and WHEREAS, John Hillman submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, as the dormer is consistent with the house as it stands, and the general conditions of the area would not preclude a dormer treatment; B. There is no reasonable alternative that the applicant presently has to achieve the goals, other than that which is proposed which is reasonable; Zoning Board February 10, 1998 Page 6 C. It is not a substantial variance in terms of the square footage of the property; D. There is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; E. It is not a self-created difficulty. In addition, the applicant has voluntarily made an application to New York State in order to comply with provisions regarding egress to the third floor area which is an additional hurdle to be overcome. Another entity to look at the proposed work would be appropriate, under Application Law; F. The Board notes that the variance being authorized will only allow for the addition of a third floor dormer as specifically noted in the plans filed, and that any other construction on the third floor within the required setback will require an additional variance as the Town Board would require. G. 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. H. 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. I. 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. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 2. 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. 3. 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. Simon asked the building inspector if any comments were received from the neighbors regarding this application. Mr. Carpaneto said no comments were received, which was verified by the secretary. Mr. Csenge asked about the section of the State Code referred to, which was stated to be in subchapter E. A discussion ensued regarding Mr. Wexler's comments on the difficulty in reading the plans as presented. The Secretary read the next application as follows: Zoning Board February 10, 1998 Page 7 ® APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2301 Application of Mr. & Mrs. Peter Mondo requesting a variance to legalize an existing deck. The deck in question has an existing side yard setback of 8.2 ft. where a minimum of 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a), a total side yard of 15.67 ft. where a minimum of 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b);and further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 390 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220 Lot 481. Peter Mondo, 390 Weaver Street, Larchmont appeared, stating he replaced an existing deck and did not realize at that time there were requirements for doing so. Mr. Kelleher asked why the applicant is before the Board as the deck has been in existence for twelve years. Mr. Mondo said he is selling the house, applied for a Certificate of Occupancy, at which time he was informed a variance was needed. Mr. Gunther asked the building inspector if all the other conditions meet requirements. Mr. Mondo said that plans were submitted to the Board by an architect. Mr. Carpaneto said he had not seen the deck, another member of the department had. A discussion ensued regarding the length of time the deck has been in existence, and the setbacks. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There were none. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, 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. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Peter Mondo have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an existing deck. The deck in question has an existing side yard setback of 8.2 ft. where a minimum of 10 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(a), a total side yard of 15.67 ft. where a minimum of 25 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(2)(b);and further, the deck increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 390 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220 Lot 481; 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(2)(a), Section 240-37B(2)(b), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Peter Mondo 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 Zoning Board February 10, 1998 Page 8 WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties created, since the deck has been in existence for many years and is not out of character with decks that are applied to the rear of single family homes; B. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved in any other way but by having an outdoor useable space attached to the back of his house such as the proposed deck; C. It is not a large variance but is quite small in its request, since the side yard encroaches only approximately 3 ft. along the side of the deck from the required 10 ft. to an existing 8.2 ft.; D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, since the deck has been in existence for well over twelve years and some structure existed prior to that; E. It is not a self-created difficulty; F. The variance granted for this deck is a single authorization, and any other construction in relation to this deck will require an additional variance; G. 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; H. 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; I. 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. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 2. 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. 3. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. Zoning Board February 10, 1998 Page 9 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a building permit and then a Certificate of Occupancy. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2302 Application of GLSN Realty Corp. requesting a variance to construct an addition to the front of the existing building. The addition to be constructed on the existing building and lot has an existing floor area of 73% and proposes a floor area of 83% where a floor area of 50% is permitted pursuant to Section 240-45C,has an existing lot coverage of 73% and proposes a lot coverage of 90% where 25% lot coverage is permitted pursuant to Section 240-45A(3), has an existing width at the front lot line of 50 ft. where 150 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-45A(2),and proposes to add no parking spaces where the addition of three (3)parking spaces is required pursuant to Section 240-78; and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a building in a Business Zone District on the premises located at 176 Myrtle Blvd. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Lot 642. Jeff Meighan, 100 Mamaroneck Avenue, Mamaroneck, attorney for applicant, appeared along with Gjoko Shkereli, the current owner of the property, and James Gaita, the architect. Mr. Meighan said the property is the Gold Lake property which was fire damaged in the fall of'96. Mr. Shkereli, who has operated a hair salon for thirteen years a few doors away at 168 Myrtle Boulevard, purchased the property last September. Mr. Shkereli intends to rehabilitate the property and occupy the part of the building that was Gold Lake. The applicant plans to bring the building out 500 sq. ft. with a portico on the front to improve the aesthetics of the building and bring it in line with all of the other buildings on the block, as the building sits back from the common property line. The building cannot be seen coming up the hill, as it is blocked by the Coughlin building. It will enable the applicant to conform to "ADA" handicap rules and enable having a ramping effect. The net increase of useable retail area is close to zero, due to the handicap space needed. The stores have been retail for a long time in that area. The applicant has received inquiries from a nail salon and perhaps a deli which will service the area quite well, as there are a number of office spaces and apartment houses in the area. The use as retail for the area enhances the neighborhood. Going through the five requirements of the area variances, this will not create an undesirable change or a detriment to nearby properties, it will be nicer looking and better servicing the area. It will not effect the neighboring buildings. It comes out a little in front, and brings it in line with the other buildings. The applicant could not achieve his goals by any other method, as it is a small nonconforming property where the zoning has been upgraded year after year around it. The request is not substantial,as the net increase in retail space is essentially zero. It will not have an adverse effect on the physical and environmental nature of the neighborhood, as it has been in the area for many years. The request is self-created by the fact that the applicant purchased the property in September and now wishes to rehabilitate it. The building has been vacant for over one year. James Gaita, the designer of the project, appeared and passed out a copy of the tax map, Town of Mamaroneck Assessment Map, Block 133-154, which is a part of the record, showing the relation of the proposed building compared to the others along Myrtle Boulevard from Chatsworth Avenue to Madison Avenue. The building has been an eyesore since the fire in November of'96. Unlike the three previous applications, this application will benefit the surrounding community and community at large. The new owner purchased the building to bring his own business into it and will not be an absentee landlord,as Mr. Meighan pointed out. Mr. Shkereli has been in business about twenty years, thirteen of which have been in the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr. Shkereli proposes to restore the building with stores and services to be utilized by the immediate neighborhood. The applicant expects the proposed building design to increase the value of the surrounding properties, and building out to the property line will bring the building more in conformance and will have a connected look with the rest of Myrtle Boulevard. Mr. Gaita said as shown on the right side elevation the lower portion of the building is 121 ft. by 73 ft., a brick and frame Zoning Board February 10, 1998 Page 10 building. The applicant is proposing to bring out a stucco addition as shown with an interior of 10 ft. by (U,, 50 ft. and a portico of 7 ft. which is open and will connect the stores to one another that allows for handicap access. Mr. Gaita presented and explained photographs, marked exhibit 1, which is a part of the record. Mr. Wexler asked the reason for moving the building forward. Mr. Gaita said the most important reason is for handicap accessibility. Mr. Kelleher said from the beginning of the presentation it appears that the applicant only renovated within the current footprint and that renovation, in conformity with the American With Disabilities Act (ADA), will cause the loss of useable retail space with the applicant ending up with less square footage that can be used for the businesses than currently exists. Mr. Gaita agreed stating passage ways have to be increased, along with the size of the lavatories and other things according to the ADA. The actual interior square footage for the whole building is 450 sq. ft. rather than 500 sq. ft. as noted. Ms. Martin asked what stores previously occupied that space. Mr. Shkereli said there previously was Gold Lake Delicatessen, a chinese restaurant and a hair salon which had been in that location for years, and prior to that there was a liquor store. Ms. Martin said if the applicant proposes the same type of usage, there will not be a significant increase in traffic. Mr. Meighan said less traffic will be created. Mr. Wexler asked for the determining factor for the height of the parapets along the front of the proposed building. Mr. Gaita said the height of the parapets is in relationship to the signage, which has not yet been designed, and needed the headroom; a discussion ensued regarding same. Mr. Simon said to the building inspector that the applicant has to go to the Board of Architectural Review for signage, which Mr. Carpaneto agreed with. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Gaita to explain the logic behind the change to support the ADA requirements, as only one of the building has a step that can be turned into a ramp. Mr. Gaita said the step could be turned into a ramp. A discussion ensued regarding the percentage of lot coverage. Mr. Gunther asked the applicant to address the parking situation. Mr. Meighan said he does not feel there is an impact on parking, as the applicant is not increasing the useable retail space therefore not increasing the parking from before. The impact is the same rehab as it was pre-rehab. Mr. Gunther said an additional 450 sq. ft. is an addition of retail space. Mr. Meighan said the impact on the street was fulfilled by the Coughlin building with off-street parking. Zoning Board February 10, 1998 Page 11 A discussion ensued regarding the parking regulations in force on the street at the present time, and ® employee parking. Mr. Wexler asked if permit parking is available for the three spaces in lieu of providing parking. Mr. Meighan said the only permit parking is across the street which is taken mostly by apartment dwellers. Mr. Gaita said there is a waiting list for permit parking, but there is always over 50% parking spaces empty every day. Mr. Meighan said currently there is a proposal to make diagonal parking across the street from the property to create additional parking. Mr. Shkereli said when he complained to Chief Dallas about the street parking and the fact that the parking lot was empty during the day he was told no one was allowed to park because individuals had permits for the spaces. Chief Dallas had said when the permits expire, they would not be renewed for during the day but evening only. Nothing more has transpired since then. Mr. Wexler asked how a permit is obtained. Mr. Meighan said an application is made and the individual is put on a waiting list. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Shkereli would accept a condition that in lieu of the three spaces that when permits become available Mr. Shkereli will purchase and maintain them. Mr. Shkereli said that is no problem. Mr. Wexler said that would address the parking requirement. Mr. Meighan said Mr. Shkereli will put his name on the list and if spaces become available they will be purchased and maintained. Mr. Wexler said he is more concerned about employee parking, rather than customer parking. Mr. Healy said there are legal procedural questions; it is an unlisted action under SEQRA, not a Type II action because it deals with commercial property and there is a requirement in the Town Ordinance that it be a referral to the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC). The other issue is whether this must be referred to the County Planning Board. Mr. Gunther said that counsel generally reviews the application before the meeting and makes the referral. The secretary said there are no referrals in the file. After some discussion regarding County referral, the Board stated it does not have a county designation. Mr. Healy said according to code, referrals must be made before taking action. Mr. Gunther said a referral can be made and a sense of the Board obtained for the applicant and the matter adjourned to the next meeting. The applicant would not have to attend the next meeting if there is a positive sense from the Board and a Negative Declaration received from the CZMC. Mr. Gaita asked for clarification of commercial referrals, which was provided. Mr. Wexler said the applicant filed a building permit application, and it was rejected because the zoning requirements were not met. All the routes should be followed by submitting application to the BAR, CZMC and whatever else is needed. Zoning Board February 10, 1998 Page 12 Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. ® Warren Goodman of 17 No. Chatsworth Avenue, Larchmont appeared. Mr. Goodman said he parks in the lot being discussed, parallel to the premises being discussed, and is an attorney in the Village of Larchmont. Mr. Goodman said the Board is correct about the parking permit situation and pointed out, as a matter of security, that the area is dark and poorly lit. When the stores were open and lighted, it enhanced security. Mr. Goodman pointed out the dangers of having a vacant building in its current state and likes the idea of having a building and lighting. As a co-op owner, Mr. Goodman feels the area is currently an eyesore and considers the proposal a benefit to the applicant and a benefit to the public safety, health and welfare of the community. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members. There being none, on a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon and unanimously ADOPTED, it is RESOLVED, that this is an Unlisted Action and as such the matter is referred to the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) for their review and opinion. Mr. Gunther asked the Board members to indicate their leaning towards the application, at which time all members stated they would be in favor of granting the application. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that case #2302 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the March 25, 1998 meeting, pending receipt of comments from the CZMC. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ® On a motion made by Mr. Wexler, seconded by Ms. Martin, the January 21, 1998 Minutes were approved 3-0, with two abstentions; i.e. Mr. Kelleher and Mr. Simon. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on March 25, 1998. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made by Mr. Gunther and seconded, the public session of the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m., at which time the Executive Session convened. ;61 Margue a Roma, Recording Secretary C