Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_02_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK FEBRUARY 26, 1997, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman , f1 �Z Jillian A. Martin J. Rene Simon .� , #t Arthur Wexler et; CO in Absent: Patrick B. Kelleher Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel 7. William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector Susan Sturino, 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 7:50 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther said the Minutes and administrative matters will be reviewed at the end of the meeting. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2250 (adjourned 12/18/96; 1/22/97) Application of G.M.S.F. Holdings,Ltd. (formerly Ian Ira Fisher) requesting a variance to construct a two (2)story one(1) family dwelling with a detached one(1)car garage with a front setback of 25.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39-B(1); the front porch has a setback of 20.5 ft. where 22.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-51-A; the rear yard has a setback of 19.0 ft. at its closest point where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39-B(3)(a); and the bay window has a setback of 19.0 ft. where 23.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-51-A all for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 71 Colonial Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112 Lot 16. Mr. Gunther said as noted at the last meeting on January 22, 1997, this application came before the Board also on December 18, 1996. There were lengthy public hearings on this matter. The public hearing was closed and completed at the last meeting. Mr. Gunther said the Board had discussed a resolution in general terms. The resolution has been drafted, Mr. Gunther will review the resolution and Board members will have an opportunity to discuss it, if need be, and vote on it. Mr. Gunther proceeded to read the proposed resolution,after which he asked if there were any comments from the Board members. After some discussion and review, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and adopted, 4-0, Mr. Kelleher was absent. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 2 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. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, G.M.S.F. Holdings, Ltd. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two(2)story one(1)family dwelling with a detached one(1)car garage with a front setback of 25.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39-B(1); the front porch has a setback of 20.5 ft. where 22.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-51-A; the rear yard has a setback of 19.0 ft. at its closest point where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39-B(3)(a); and the bay window has a setback of 19.0 ft. where 23.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-51-A all for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 71 Colonial Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 112 Lot 16; 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 240-39-B(1), Section 240-51-A, Section 240-39-B(3)(a); and WHEREAS, G.M.S.F. Holdings, Ltd. 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 heard evidence from the applicant and neighbors residing in the vicinity of the subject property regarding the impact of the proposed house as reflected in the Minutes of the Board's December 18, 1996 and January 22, 1997 meetings; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required pursuant to New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted will far outweigh any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood,including the neighbors who testified in opposition to the application. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: a. The proposed house will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. To the contrary, the plans submitted demonstrate that the granting of the variances requested will permit the construction of a colonial style house that is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood than the house that can be constructed as-of-right,which would be triangular in shape due to the size and shape of the lot. The variances requested will permit the house to be squared off, instead of triangular in footprint. The variance house is in harmony with the architecture of the community. In addition, as the Building Department confirmed in its memorandum to the Board, dated January 14, 1997, the front yard setback requested in the application is also in keeping with exiting conditions in the neighborhood. The applicant has agreed to plant arborvitae along the rear perimeter of the property to provide a green buffer between the proposed house and the adjoining property to the rear (190 Murray Avenue). Also, the applicant will plant hemlocks along the border of the property that it shares with the school. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 3 Accordingly, the Board finds that the variances requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the community. b. There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed house that would not require variances because the as-of-right solution has unacceptable negative impacts on the character of the community. As explained above, the as-of-right house is oddly shaped and is not in keeping with the architecture of the community. Because of the irregular shape of the lot, without the requested variances it would be impossible to construct a house that would be saleable because of its odd shape. c. The variance requested is not substantial. The proposed encroachments constitute only 3.6% of the area of the lot. The variances requested are the minimum necessary to construct a rectangular shaped house on this irregularly shaped lot. The applicant withdrew its request for a variance to permit the construction of a porch because that variance was not necessary to solve the problems created by the irregularly shaped lot. The remaining variances are the minimum necessary to permit construction of a saleable residence in keeping with the character of the community. d. The proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the area. Although many neighbors testified about their fears that the construction of the proposed house on the lot would increase flooding in the area, these fears were not substantiated by any credible evidence or testimony. By contrast, the Town's consulting engineer, Gary Trachtman of Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., reviewed the proposed house and storm water management plans and indicated that the proposed dry well design will limit the surface water runoff from the property to that which occurs now. See letter from Gary Trachtman, dated January 13, 1997, at 2. Accordingly, Mr. Trachtman concluded that the proposed residence will not significantly affect drainage conditions in the vicinity of the site. See id. at 3. Moreover, the Board fails to discern any difference in runoff resulting from the proposed house or the as-of-right solution. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence before the Board demonstrates that the granting of the variances requested will not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the area. e. The difficulty alleged is not self-created. The need for the variances arises as a result of the irregular shape of the lot and the existing architecture of the community. f. 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 variances requested are APPROVED on the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall plant 6 foot arborvitae(measured from the top of the ball) set at 3-4 feet and on center along the rear property line that adjoins the lot known as 190 Murray Avenue. The applicant shall also plant hemlocks along the border of the property that it shares with the Murray Avenue School. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 4 2. The applicant shall erect orange construction fencing along the perimeter of the property during construction and will limit the operation of heavy equipment to hours when school children are not on their way to or from school. 3. The applicant shall use chipping rather than blasting as a method for rock removal wherever possible. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the revised plans submitted to the Board, dated January 16, 1997. 5. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within six (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 6. 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; This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2252 (adjourned 1/22/97) Application of Robert Stanziale for Frank Auricchio requesting a variance to maintain an off-site,off-street parking lot used by Collins Brothers Moving Co. on a lot within 500 ft. of their building for off-street parking as may be permitted by the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 240-79, and further, the parking area is 9,230.0 sq. ft. where 10,500 sq. ft. of area, more or less, is required pursuant to Section 240-4, and further, the Zoning Board must find that the total amount of facilities provided on the whole lot will substantially meet the intent of the requirements of both uses, pursuant to Section 240-78C, all for commercial uses in an S.B. Service Business Zone District on the premises located at 5 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lot 609. Dolores Battalia, of Stein&Battalia, 2001 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont, appeared for the property owner Frank Auricchio. Ms. Battalia said this matter had been referred to the CZMC and reviewed, and there were no comments with respect to changes in the plans. Ms. Gallent said that the CZMC has submitted a letter, a copy of which all Board members have received, which indicates the proposed action is consistent with the LWRP policies. Mr. Gunther read the letter from the CZMC, dated February 14, 1997, into the record. In reference to the CZMC letter dated February 14, 1997, Ms. Battalia said the parking area will remain gravel and will not be paved. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from members of the Board on this matter. Mr. Gunther then read a proposed Negative Declaration, which was duly accepted. After discussion and review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and adopted, 4-0. WHEREAS, the Board has previously determined that this is an Unlisted Action pursuant to SEQRA; and WHEREAS, the Board has adopted a Negative Declaration,pursuant to SEQRA,because the EAF reveals that the action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact; and Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 5 WHEREAS, Robert Stan7iale for Frank Auricchio has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain an off-site, off-street parking lot used by Collins Brothers Moving Co. of a lot within 500 ft. of their building for off-street parking which may be permitted by the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to Section 240-79,and further, the parking area is 9,230.0 sq. ft. where 10,500 sq. ft. of area, more or less, is required pursuant to Section 240-4, and further, the Zoning Board must find that the total amount of facilities provided on the whole lot will substantially meet the intent of the requirements of both uses, pursuant to Section 240-78C, all for commercial uses in an S.B. Service Business Zone District on the premises located at 5 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 132 Lot 609; 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 240-79,Section 240-4, Section 240-78C all for commercial uses in an S.B. Service Business Zone District; and WHEREAS, Robert Stanziale for Frank Auricchio 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 Board makes the following findings: 1. Collins Brothers operates a moving and storage business on the premises located at 628 Fifth Avenue. 2. Collins Brothers uses its site to park its moving trucks; accordingly it is impractical to require it to provide on-site parking for other vehicles on the lot on which its building is located. 3. 5 Fifth Avenue is within 500 ft. of Collins Brothers' site and is located in a Service Business District. 4. As demonstrated by the site plan, dated April 16, 1996, 5 Fifth Avenue has adequate parking spaces for all of the uses shown on said site plan as well as for Collins Brothers. Thus the total amount of parking provided on 5 Fifth Avenue will meet the letter and intent of the requirements for both Collins Brothers' use and the uses located at 5 Fifth Avenue, as required by Town Code §240-78C. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board grants authorization pursuant to Town Code §§240-79 and 140-78(c) for the required parking for Collins Brothers to be located at 5 Fifth Avenue on the following conditions: A. This approval will automatically terminate upon the termination of the operation of either Collins Brothers or any of the establishments shown on the site plan for 5 Fifth Avenue, dated April 16, 1996, and the use of any of these sites by a different tenant or owner. B. If the gravel area is paved, an oil-grit separator must be installed as indicated in the CZMC's letter, dated February 14, 1997. C. The weeds shall be removed around the perimeter of the lot. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Gunther said before hearing the remaining applications, #3 through #6, for those people who are present the two applications that came before the Board were heard before, the applications that are now going before the Board will be the first time they will be heard the Board. Mr. Gunther said there are only four Board members present, for an action to occur three members have to vote for it out of a potential five. The Board can proceed with the applications, or the application can be held until five members are present next month. Mr. Gunther asked each applicant to advise the Board of its decision when the application is read. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2253 (adjourned 1/22/97) Application of Mr. & Mrs. M. Wojciechowski requesting a variance to construct a bedroom and bath addition with a rear yard of 20.6 ft.where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);and further, the addition 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 20 Glen Eagles Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109 Lot 146. Ned Stoll, a partner of Stoll & Stoll Architects, Three Town Dock Road, New Rochelle, appeared on behalf of Mark and Karen Wojciechowski. Mr. Stoll said there are two parts to the application, the first part requesting an interpretation of the yard setbacks on the property, as the current interpretation is unduly burdensome on the property. Mr. Stoll presented the Board with a survey, exhibit A. Mr. Wexler commented that the request for an interpretation was not noticed. Mr. Gunther said the Board will be happy to consider the application for a variance, but if Mr. Stoll is asking for something other than that, the case will have to be renoticed. Mr. Stoll suggested he go through the application with the Board, and depending on the Board's sense of the application, then decide to proceed on the variance or adjourn it and renotice it to include the interpretation request. Mr. Stoll then proceeded to explain the particulars. Mr. Stoll said the copy of the survey shows yard setbacks, which was the basis for the discussion with Mr. Gerety in September of last year when the applicant presented his interpretation of the setbacks on the property. It shows the yard is an irregular shape; a long front yard on the bend of Glen Eagles Drive, a short rear yard of 36 ft., approximately 155 ft. of frontage. Noticed in the application is the existing nonconformity of the corner of the house, the 4 ft. triangle. Mr. Stoll said there is a long front yard, a short rear yard where a 25 ft. setback is required, and two side yards. Mr. Stoll said Mr. Gerety's interpretation, which is reflected in the denial, is that the applicant has a long front yard, two rear yards (the short one and the 165 ft. line), so that there is a long front, short rear, a long rear and one side. Given that front yards and rear yards are more restrictive than side yards, the applicant feels it is burdensome to give the property two rear yards. It is in fact the side of the house, it has restriction and should not be considered as two rear yards. Ms. Gallent said Mr. Stoll should go through the variance as it was properly noticed, and save discussion of the interpretation until it has been properly noticed. Mr. Stoll said the second part of the application proposes work which consists of additions and alterations to the existing Tudor house. Mr. Gunther said before getting to the particulars of the addition to the property based upon the building department's requirements, where is the encroachment that is referred to. Mr. Stoll demonstrated on the survey the proposed addition and the 20 ft. 6 in. dimension on the side yard which the building department is indicative as the rear yard. There is approximately 70 sq. ft. of encroachment. Mr. Stoll said regarding the issues of the variance; whether an undesirable change is Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 7 produced in the character of the neighborhood and a detriment to it; the applicant's presentation would be that it is a one-story variance, well screened from the surrounding properties by existing plantings,blends with the architectural character of the house, and the variance is small. The issue of whether benefits can be achieved by some method other than the variance; given the desired area, the proposed addition would be the necessary configuration to accommodate the functions sought. It is fair to say that the room can be reconfigured to conform with the setback line. However, that would create an addition which was not be architecturally in line and would be closer to the neighbor's house because of the angle of the property. Mr. Gunther asked for clarification. Mr. Stoll said if the room is reconfigured to get the space the applicant needs, it would have to wrap around the rear of the house and would be more into the field of view of the neighbor's house. Mr. Stoll said that Mark Wojciechowski is also present. Mr. Gerety gave Mr. Gunther the tax map that shows the position of the houses on Glen Eagles Drive and Knollwood Drive for the Board to peruse. A discussion ensued. Mr. Stoll addressed the third item; whether the requested area of the variance is substantial. Mr. Gunther said the norm for building on a lot should be to try to design construction so that it conforms to the zoning and does not require a variance, which makes it incumbent on the Board to ask why does the proposal have to encroach on this area and why couldn't the element be moved, considering the fact that there is a fairly large amount of space available. Mr. Stoll said it is not that it couldn't be done, but that it would be less desirable than what is proposed for two primary reasons. It would move more of the addition onto the setback line facing the neighbor's house, and also creates a problem with the symmetry on the side of the house. By keeping the element in the area that wraps around, it compromises the architectural character of the back of the house. Mr. Wexler said he felt Mr. Stoll's explanation was a more valid point than being in the view of the rear of the neighbor's house. Mr. Stoll said he would be lining up more of a wall facing that house, rather than keeping it towards the road. A discussion ensued regarding wrapping the wall, privacy, and plantings. Mr. Gunther said Mr. Stoll had made mention of family requirements requiring the additional space and asked if anything should be added to that. Mr. Stoll said the function of the room serves as an eating area for the adjacent kitchen, a mud room and a stair up from the driveway. Mr. Stoll said the third point is whether the variance is substantial,and said the variance is not substantial. It is a variance that occurs for a short distance along the property line in an area of approximately 70 sq. ft. out of a 14,000 ft. property, which may be .05%. Mr. Stoll then addressed the issue of whether the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district, stating he did not think there were any environmental issues over this configuration or any other configuration and it is consistent with the environment of the neighborhood. Mr. Stoll then addressed the issue of whether the alleged difficulty is self-created; the difficulty was not self-created, but created by the irregular shape of the property from its inception in the subdivision of the neighborhood. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Stoll wanted to address the point with regard to changing the character of the neighborhood. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Stoll said it does not change the character of the neighborhood, in fact, a key element is the proposed addition maintains the character of the existing house and contributes to the neighborhood's character. Mr. Stoll said that is the summary of his presentation and welcomed questions from the Board. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant was proceeding with just the portion of the variance noticed. Ms. Gallent said that since the variance was properly noticed, the Board could vote on that issue. Mr. Gunther said to proceed with the presentation there will be questions from the Board, questions and comments from the public, and then Mr. Stoll will be asked how he wants to proceed. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public regarding this application. Mildred Gladstone of 5 Knollwood Drive appeared, stating she is concerned because the house is large now, the proposed addition will be bigger and there is no shrubbery to screen the addition. The house is at the top crest of a hill, the highest point in the area, and she is concerned about water and drainage during construction. Mr. Wexler asked what portion of the house is visible from Ms. Gladstone's house. Ms. Gladstone said she can see the whole back of the house, and is concerned about the environmental impact on her property. Mr. Gunther said Ms. Gladstone can see the house whether the addition is built or not. Ms. Gladstone said the house will be bigger. Mr. Wexler said there is a part of the house in the application for an addition that does not require a variance. A discussion ensued, with Ms. Gladstone looking at pictures submitted to the Board. Mr. Wexler said the point the applicant is making is that if the house was moved in Ms. Gladstone's direction, the applicant would not need a variance and will be more in her view. Mr. Gunther mentioned to Ms. Gladstone that for any new construction in the Town, the person who builds has to provide for the water runoff for the new area. If the applicant adds 100 sq. ft. of new roof on the property,he will have to have a dry well to handle a 100-year storm worth of water for the 100 new square feet of roof. The gutters that are on the new area of roof have to go underground into his storm drain and any runoff, because of new impervious surface, has to be contained on the property. Ms. Gladstone asked who follows up on that particular issue. Mr. Gunther said the Building Department,because when a building permit is issued,not only do they have to do this to get a Certificate of Occupancy, they have to post a bond with the Town to insure that it is done. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Stoll if a lot coverage calculation had been done. Mr. Stoll said lot coverage was below 35%. Judy Raab, of 7 Knollwood,appeared and said the Glen Eagles area is significantly higher up than the area where she resides. There are no shrubs in that particular area. In looking at the plans it is a beautiful addition, and she can understand the reason for the proposed addition because of the symmetry. What is not shown in the pictures is it is a very horizontal house that covers the whole lot fully. If the proposed Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 9 addition is built it will be more massive, may not be changing the character of the neighborhood in that it is keeping with that of being a Tudor but it is unsightly having huge houses on small parcels of land. There will be a variance on top of a variance in order to proceed with the proposed addition, and she wondered whether there was some other way to handle the addition without requiring neighbors to be ever closer in terms of fixtures encroaching on other fixtures. In terms of environmental concerns, Ms. Raab said she hopes this will be checked to make sure there is no environmental problem for any neighbor. Mr. Wexler commented that the majority of the addition is within limits, but it is the attempt of the architect to make a pleasing addition that requires the variance. Ms. Raab asked if there some way that the symmetry that the architect and the family are looking for can be done without a variance and without the need to move the house in a less pleasing way. Mr. Gunther said the Board always asks if the variance is the minimum needed to alleviate the applicant's difficulty. Ms. Raab asked if the Board also considered the needs of the homeowners around. Mr. Gunther said the Board considers all of the above, and asked if there were any other questions from the public on the application. Mr. Stoll said in the process, during the notification after the denial, the Wojciechowski's contacted their immediately effected and other surrounding neighbors offering them an opportunity to see the plans and a number of neighbors did so. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Stoll wanted to make any comments in regard to the comments the Board has received from the public. Mr. Wojciechowski said he appreciated what the neighbors said and thought carefully about the addition and size needs. In order to get the size wanted, the addition would have to be turned and would be more intrusive to the individuals that appeared before the Board and spoke this evening. Mr. Wojciechowski said landscaping will be provided. Mr. Stoll said they will be rigorous on the drainage issue. A discussion ensued regarding what need created the size of the addition. Mr. Stoll said in terms of the first part, where they feel it is restrictive on the property more than it should be, the reality is the applicant does not want to go any farther than indicated in the proposed work. Mr. Gunther asked how the applicant would like to proceed. Mr. Stoll said there are two issues and would like to proceed with the issue of the variance that the Board is able to address this evening. In terms of a response to the neighbors, the applicant is interested in addressing their concerns regarding the proposal of shrubbery and screening. Mr. Gunther said he would like to poll the Board to get a sense of how the Board would vote, so the applicant can get a sense of the potential vote on the application from the Board. Mr. Wexler said it would be helpful if the architect would explain the massing of the addition,because that was the direct result of the proposed shape and the encroachment on the rear lot line. Mr. Stoll then explained the room would be a triangular shape without the variance. There are existing mature plantings that screen part of the existing house. The existing addition on the other side of the house also is behind existing trees and mature plantings. Coming around the side of the house, the applicant's Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 10 attempt is to continue with the character of the house and the tradition using the stair entry element to bring down the scale of the view from the driveway side. The property slopes toward the driveway. Further back is the family room at the main level, connecting to the kitchen beyond. From the rear of the house the central block of the house is a symmetrical elevation. The photographs show the rear elevation has a strong central plan with symmetrically placed windows and doors on the rear of the house that the applicant would like to maintain and keep the addition to the side of it. On the roof itself, the applicant went to the configuration of the roof, because of the tall slate roofs used on much of the house. If you put a gable or hip over the room matching the kind of slopes used on some of the other roof forms on the house, then it becomes a very tall room. By using the shallower form, the applicant was able to accommodate a nice space on the inside without creating a tall room on the outside. Mr. Stoll said copper will be used on the family room and slate on the entrance. A discussion ensued regarding the use of copper, slate and the depth of the roof. Mr. Stoll said considering the house from the side, demonstrates the proposed study. Mr. Stoll said that is the strategy and the character of the proposed addition and asked if there were any questions. Mr. Gunther then polled the Board regarding the sense of the Board on the application, stating that while Mr. Gunther feels the style and design are quite fitting with the character of the house and neighborhood, but he has difficulty with the size and massing, considering what other space is available on the lot. Mr. Gunther said when looking at it from a zoning prospective, he looks for the minimum necessary to meet the applicant's need, and has difficulty voting in favor of the application merely because of the amount of space being added and the fact there is so much other buildable space available on the lot. Mr. Gunther said as currently presented, he would not vote in favor of it. Mr. Simon said the house is beautiful,but overpowering because of the height. The addition can still be attractive and stay within the zoning. Mr. Simon said he could not vote in favor of the application. Mr. Simon said that by bringing the addition up, the applicant is bringing attention to it. Mr. Wexler said it is difficult to build the addition without some encroachment on the rear yard and discussed the elevations and the massing. Mr. Wexler said a complicated structure happened; i.e. the kitchen is the area that gets enlarged, because that is where the activity of life occurs, and to make an addition that would match the architectural merit of the existing house and the other three elevations, something must be done that frees itself of the corner and must come out further from the house which violates the proper interpretation of the yard. Mr. Wexler said he is in favor of the addition, because it is more important that what gets built is right. Ms. Martin said she would be inclined to vote in favor of the variance because aesthetically it would be better given the unusual nature of the house, and given the fact that the applicant is willing to accommodate the consensus of the neighbors for additional screening. Mr. Stoll then addressed the concerns of the members not in favor of the addition, stating with respect to the house and the property, it is valid to say there are other square feet available. Mr. Gerety said the applicant is currently at about 29% of lot coverage, and the applicant would be able to make a huge increase regarding lot coverage. A discussion ensued regarding the percentage of lot coverage. Mr. Stoll said that qualitatively a square foot is not a square foot and by doing this one-half a percent of the site encroachment, it allows an architectural integrity that both accommodates the function and goes with the house. With respect to neighborhood concerns, he has addressed them by keeping the addition the furthest that can be done from anyone that is concerned. It is a situation where working with the character of what is there is a plus, a benefit to the community, as well as the homeowner, which was also expressed by the neighbors. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 11 Mr. Gunther said he does not disagree with any of what Mr. Stoll is saying, but his objection is to the size of the addition versus the size of the space that is available on the property, and that there may be another solution that can be built without requiring a variance. Mr. Stoll agrees that there is, but thinks it is worse. Mr. Gunther said the applicant is proposing to add a 15 ft. x 25 ft. room and stairwell into an area that the zoning says should not be built. Its substantial nature in terms of percentage of coverage is small in comparison to the total on the lot. However, there is still a fairly large lot and other areas where either the room can be made smaller or it could be built elsewhere. Mr. Gunther said it is up to the architect to find some other solution to accommodate both the applicant's need for space within the building envelope. Mr. Gunther added that there is one Board member absent this evening. A discussion ensued regarding voting this evening and renoticing the application if an interpretation is requested. Mr. Gunther informed Mr. Stoll of the alternatives he has; wait for the other Board member; seek an interpretation of the Building Inspector's identification of side and rear lot lines, at which point the Board may decide Mr. Stoll's interpretation was right, the Building Inspector was wrong and the applicant does not need a variance; plans can be altered. Ms. Gallent said it seems that the two members who seem to be opposed are opposed because they believe there is an as-of-right solution that would do away with the need for a variance. Ms. Gallent asked Mr. Stoll if he could show those Board members that an as-of-right solution is unsatisfactory, it might be beneficial. Mr. Stoll then discussed the plan alternatives that conform with the zoning that creates a difficult room. Mr. Wexler said the date on the plan was 2/20/97, which was probably prepared for this evening's Board meeting. Mr. Wexler said in the process of coming this far, Mr. Stoll obviously arrived at that solution because the as-of-right in the development of it was not adequate; the side lot line, the slope of the roof, the 2-story structure on one side, the slope of the hill. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Stoll what the as-of-right addition would look like. Mr. Wojciechowski said they did have as-of-right plans and said the as-of-right came closer to the neighbors. Mr. Stoll said it is impossible to create any kind of mass form that makes any sense over the proposed addition. The room is cockeyed to the house, gables cannot be run properly, you cannot connect into the existing corner of the house, it is not something that you can start to have be a cohesive part of the rest of the home. You can functionally accommodate a TV sitting area and eating area, but it will be a mess. The existing plans used a shallow roof form in keeping with the house to tuck it into the existing corner of the house where most of the roofs on the house are very tall. Mr. Stoll said what was done was architecturally reasonable to minimize impact. A discussion ensued regarding the high roof lines, the room, the stairs, the possibility of reconfiguring the stairs and reducing the square footage of encroachment. Mr. Stoll said he can work with the criteria discussed. Mr. Gunther said Mr. Stoll has several options available. The application can be renoticed including a request for an interpretation as an alternate. Ms. Raab asked if both additions were going to be 2 stories high. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 12 Mr. Stoll said it will be kept as low as possible. A discussion ensued regarding the height of the addition,the encroachment, the roof material, the stairway, the entrance, and the area not affected by the variance. Mr. Simon said the applicant should try to minimize the zoning variance request. Mr. Wexler gave examples of how this could be done without destroying what the intent is and what the applicant is looking for. Mr. Wexler said his main concern is the roof and the slate to be used. Mr. Stoll said he would respectfully like to adjourn to the next meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2253 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the next meeting. Mr. Wojciechowski asked what is requested in terms of a revision to the application. Mr. Gunther said in terms of what has already been concluded in the application and noticed before, if alterations are being made to the plan of less than what was previously requested the wording does not have to be changed. The only change that will be made in the notice will be to include the request for an interpretation. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2254 Application of David and Susan Kettig requesting a variance to construct a 2-story front addition with a front setback of 27.5 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39-B(1), and the lot coverage would be 45% where 35% is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 240-39-F, and the additional land coverage increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 10 Byron Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Lot 398.1. John Curry, the architect appeared representing the applicant. Mr. Curry said the applicant is proposing an addition and is looking for two different variances. The site is 80 x 100 or 8,000 sq. ft., and then discussed the proposed plan; the addition is going towards the front. Mr. Curry explained the existing house, and then said the applicant is proposing to add a family room on the first floor underneath the additional bedroom. The house will then grow from a three to four bedroom house. Mr. Curry then discussed the proposed and existing elevations on the plan. Mr. Curry said the applicant is(1)encroaching on the front yard by 2 ft. 6 in., and (2) the coverage of 35%. Mr. Curry said currently the house is at 43% before any kind of addition, and once the addition is done the coverage would be just under 45%. The applicant is asking for 1'h% in terms of increased coverage. Mr. Wexler said on the question of coverage, is it because the garage is in the rear and so much of the driveway is paved area, and asked what constitutes coverage. Mr. Gerety said coverage is everything that is impervious; driveways, walks, terraces. Mr. Wexler said because the house has a garage entry in the rear, it is already burdened with a very large amount of paved area which increases the lot coverage. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 13 Mr. Curry said the lot is 20 x 100 or 2,000 sq. ft. greater than what is required. The minimum area for the property would be 6,000 sq. ft. The footprint of the house is roughly 1,200 sq. ft. When looking at the coverage of 3,600 sq. ft., one-third is house, two-thirds are surfaces that are level with the ground. The front yard encroaches about 3 ft. The applicant considered putting the addition in other spots; in the back, the encroachment would be in the rear yard setback; on the side, that presents a challenge of a reasonable connector, i.e. hallway through the master bedroom. Therefore, the right way to approach the bedroom was to go toward the front. In doing that, if the applicant did not ask for a variance for the front yard setback, the room would be under 10 ft., thereby dealing with a room size that is not compatible to the rest of the rooms in the house which are around the size of 13 ft. to 15 ft. Mr. Curry said they tried to get something that was appropriate for the house in scale in keeping the rest of the rooms, hence the filing for a variance. The same situation applies to the family room, which would be 30 in. x 14 ft. 4 in. Mr. Curry proceeded to explain the plans before the Board. Mr. Wexler said the survey shows a one-story enclosed porch. Mr. Curry said that was previous to his employ. David Kettig said the survey was done when the house was purchased, and there was a decrepit boiler room which was taken down. There is an existing slate and concrete patio, which was the floor of the boiler room, that is why there is an additional increase in the impervious space because most of the proposed addition is on top of where the flagstone and concrete patio is. A discussion ensued regarding the landing leading down to the terrace. Mr. Gunther asked if the addition was going out 30 in. beyond existing patio. Mr. Curry said approximately. Mr. Wexler said a lot of mass is being put on; the ridge line is changed, it's not just 30 in.; it's being reconfigured; the existing house has two secondary gables in front; by constructing the addition you get one primary gable; the presence of that has much more impact than the 21/2-story addition. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Curry is proposing to use the same materials as currently used. Mr. Curry said the same materials will be used. If the timber used on the house is weathered to the point where it cannot be matched, Mr. Curry proposes to remove same and replace with the same material that will weather at the same rate. A discussion ensued regarding the flat facade. Mr. Gunther said the value of the proposed work was indicated to be $50,000.00 on the application, and asked if that was a valid number. Mr. Curry said yes. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none,after review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and adopted 4-0. 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: Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 14 WHEREAS, David and Susan Kettig have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a 2-story front addition with a front setback of 27.5 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-39-B(1), and the lot coverage would be 45% where 35% is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 240-39-F, and the additional land coverage increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-6 Zone District on the premises located at 10 Byron Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 Lot 398.1; 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 240-39-B(1), Section 240-39-F, and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, David and Susan Kettig 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. The need as stated by the applicant has been demonstrated to be factual need of the additional bedroom and family room for expanded square footage for their family. B. The house has approximately 1,200 sq. ft.with coverage increase approximately 100 sq. ft., bringing the coverage to approximately 1,350 sq. ft. of house coverage. C. The house has been burdened in relationship to the coverage by having the driveway in the rear, which is a benefit to the community because the garage is not visible,but it is negative to the coverage because you need much more face surface to get to the garage which brings up the square footage of coverage beyond the 35%. In this case the coverage is 45% where the addition itself is a minor amount of square footage in relationship to the coverage. Therefore, the extent of the 45% coverage by having a driveway in the rear for the garage is a burden to the applicant to meet the requirements. D. The house is approximately 2.5 ft. closer to the front lot line than is required but this condition is consistent with the character of the street. E. Looking down the street there is one house specifically on the left which is closer to the front lot line then this house as proposed to be constructed; the street takes a slight bend to the southeast which gives the illusion that the houses beyond this one are closer to the front lot line than the proposed house will actually be. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 15 F. The addition as presented will be a handsome addition in the context of the community and the request for the variance in relationship to the front yard is very minimal in relationship to the size of the house and property. G. The proposed variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the area. 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; 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 said to be sure to see the building department for a building permit. Mr. Gunther then called a two minute adjournment. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2255 Application of Gene Ritter requesting a variance to construct a rear addition and deck; the addition and deck as proposed would have a rear yard of 9.25 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-40- B(3); further, the addition increased the lot coverage to 48.0% where 35.0% is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 240-40-F for a residence in an R-2F Zone District on the premises located at 11 Nancy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 402 Lot 321. Gene Ritter, the applicant,appeared. Mr. Ritter said previously stated was that the deck does not constitute part of the lot coverage, and asked if that was correct. Mr. Wexler said what Mr. Ritter heard was what was said. Mr. Gerety said a deck is not considered part of lot coverage. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 16 Mr. Gunther commented that the application before the Board is for an addition and a deck. Mr. Ritter said technically the addition is part of the deck. Mr. Gunther said the addition will have an impact on the coverage, but the deck will not. Mr. Ritter said the proposed addition and deck will go over a patio that is already included in the lot coverage. The reason for the addition is to accommodate the family of seven. Mr. Ritter said the house needs some major renovations,because of problems that were caused by the builder; i.e. replaced the roof last year, back of the house rotted and will have to be replaced. Mr. Gunther asked how long the applicant resided in the house. Mr. Ritter said he resided in the house for twenty-three years. The kitchen is cramped with only a 48 in. counter space, and the proposed addition would give the applicant 6 ft. more in the kitchen with a storage pantry approximately 6 ft. x 12 ft. Mr. Ritter said there are no neighbors, because the property backs up to the railroad tracks. Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant's house was level with the railroad tracks or lower. Mr. Ritter said the back yard is about 5 ft. below the level of the tracks, and the upper windows are above the tracks, as it is a two-story high ranch. Mr. Ritter submitted a letter from the closest neighbor who has no objections. Mr. Gunther read the letter in support of the application from the Vallario family of 9 Nancy Lane to the Board, exhibit B. Mr. Wexler asked if variances were granted to residents on Nancy Lane along the rear property line. Mr. Ritter said variances have been previously granted to other residents, and cited the various work on the various residences. Mr. Gunther then asked if there were any other questions from the Board or the public. There being none, after review, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and adopted 4-0. 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. Simon, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Gene Ritter has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a rear addition and deck; the addition and deck as proposed would have a rear yard of 9.25 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-40-B(3); further, the addition increased the lot coverage to 48.0% where 35.0% is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 240-40-F for a residence in an R-2F Zone District on the premises located at 11 Nancy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 402 Lot 321; 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 240-40-B(3) and Section 240-40-F; and WHEREAS, Gene Ritter submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 17 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. The variance requested is located at the rear of the house. The rear property line is the New Haven Railroad. Accordingly, there will be no impact on the community in general or any neighbor in particular. B. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. C. The lot coverage is not changing, as it is 48% currently; with the addition of the deck and the addition there is no increase in the lot coverage since it is covering the existing patio already in that area. D. It is an irregularly shaped lot, pie shaped in nature, requiring a much longer than normal driveway to arrive at the house due to the side property lines expanding from the front lot line to get to a point where a structure can be built. Accordingly, the lot requires extensive coverage to be accessible. E. There are no other feasible alternatives to the proposal to meet the applicant's requirements for space. 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. 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; Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 18 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 said to see the Building Department for a building permit The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2256 Application of Thomas Krisanda for Kinko's requesting a variance to erect a sign on the parking lot side wall; the sign as proposed would be erected on a side wall of the building where side wall signs are prohibited pursuant to Section 175-11-B for signs to be erected in an Urban Renewal (UR) Zone District on the premises located at 1329 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412 Lot 309. Neil Carnow, architect, appeared representing the owner the building,Mr. Mark Ellman, along with Tom Krisanda who can answer specific questions about the signage. Mr. Gunther and Mr. Wexler asked for clarification regarding the individuals present. Mr. Carnow said there are several parties involved in the process of the project. Mr. Carnow said he is the architect working for the owner on site plan approval. There was a separate architect who did drawings specifically for the work proposed for Kinko's on the building,who are not present this evening, but Mr. Carnow and Mr. Krisanda are present this evening to discuss the signage. The drawings were prepared by Tom Krisanda of White Plains Sign, who technically is the applicant. Mr. Carnow is present, in conjunction with the application, to discuss the signage. Mr. Carnow said there are two signs on the side of the building as-of-right, one located on the Boston Post Road the other along Hommocks Road. The sign which is not as-of-right for which a variance is being sought, is the sign on the north side of the building facing the parking lot, the same size in area as allowed on the south side of the building as-of- right. The secondary issue to this is tied into the previous monument that was located at the entrance driveway,which in discussions with the BAR relative to site plan approval was to be removed and provide for signage on the north face of the building to provide the same measure of visual signage from the south on the Boston Post Road. Mr. Carnow said the applicant is looking for an allowable area on the north face that would be consistent with the allowable area on the south side, to provide the same level of visual signage. Mr. Carnow said when he met with the BAR, they not only approved the signage before the BAR, but also gave the applicant a positive recommendation which was forwarded to the Zoning Board recommending the variance be granted on the side applied for relative to their agreement to remove the monument sign. Mr. Gunther read the memorandum, dated January 6, 1997, from William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector, recommending the placement of the sign. Mr. Carnow said the signs are mirror images. Mr. Wexler asked if the signs are back lit lights. Mr. Krisanda said the signs are individual channel letters that are internally illuminated. Mr. Wexler asked what would be seen, a bright blue. Mr. Krisanda said you would see the outlined letter, a blue plastic face with a metal translucent frame internally lit. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 19 Mr. Wexler asked if it would be lit 24 hours, and voiced concern about the residential area. Mr. Carnow said the residential properties are approximately 15 ft. to 20 ft. higher in elevation above the stone ledge than the parking lot and presented the photographs for the Board to peruse, exhibits C and D, which were also discussed. Mr. Gerety provided the tax map for the Board members to review regarding the location of the homes in the area. Mr. Wexler asked if there was lighting in the parking lot. Mr. Carnow said there is one light. Mr. Wexler asked if the BAR approved the channel letters and back lit sign. Mr. Carnow said yes, the BAR approved the channel letters and back lit sign. Mr. Carnow said the applicant is looking for the language of the approval that allows the applicant that area, depending on the tenant involved for that area. Mr. Carnow said the tenant would go to the BAR for approval of specific lettering, color, signage, etc. within the same context of an overall envelope. A discussion ensued regarding the approval going with the land or building. Mr. Carnow said if Kinko's decided not to take the building and a different tenant came in, it would alleviate the applicant reappearing for the same discussion relative to the BAR having approved the signage but asking again for a variance for the same size area of the sign, but different letters. A discussion ensued. Mark Ellman, the owner of the property, appeared and said the BAR expressed a desire to have the monument sign removed permanently in keeping with their new view of what they would like to see, after outlawing pylon signs. Mr. Ellman said the Town would know like to see all monument signs removed, and Mr. Ellman agreed to remove the monument sign permanently in return for the BAR positively recommending installation of the sign band extending around the north wall of the building. Mr. Ellman said the monument sign has been demolished,and in attracting a high quality retail tenant, signage is a very large issue. Mr. Ellman would like to be able to say there is a variance, as the building is released over time within the confines of the signage and square footage that is permissible subject to the approval of the BAR for the content, lighting and colors. Valerie O'Keeffe, of the Town of Mamaroneck, appeared and said the Board discussed the residential property behind the subject property and asked if this sign is going to be shinning into the front yards of the two or three houses that are at a relatively high elevation on the Old Hommocks Road behind and above Dunkin Donuts. Mr. Carnow said those houses are further away, and it is heavily wooded between those houses and Kinko's. Mr. Carnow said he met with those individuals many times. Mr. Ellman said there is a rock ledge that starts at the Hommocks Road side and goes from 2'h ft., the houses behind Dunkin Donuts are about 25 ft. A discussion ensued regarding the houses on the Old Hommocks Road behind the two pillars. Mr. Ellman said the sign is on the north side of the building facing Dunkin Donuts, the houses facing Hommocks Road are behind. Mr. Gunther said Mrs. O'Keeffe cottki look at the tax map which shows the location of the houses, at which time a discussion ensued. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 20 Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board or public. Ms. O'Keeffe asked if noise had been discussed. Mr. Gunther said the application before the Board is for signage. Ms. Gallent said the application is an Unlisted Action and must be referred to the Coastal Zone Management Commission (CZMC) for a determination as to whether it is consistent with the LWRP. Mr. Gunther said he would like to get a sense of the Board for the applicant, and if the applicant feels comfortable with that, will close the public hearing. At the next meeting, there will be no reason for the applicant to personally attend the next meeting, a vote can be taken, once acknowledgement is received from the CZMC. Mr. Wexler voiced his disappointment with the BAR granting the back lit channel sign. There are much more elegant ways of lighting signs that are in the surrounding community that are much more handsome. The more you see these bright signs coming down the street. There are many ways of lighting things with handsome fixtures out housing that lights the letters themselves that don't scream at you, just a more elegant way of dealing of dealing with a solution, and I am disappointed with how our Board of Architectural Review approved this. Mr. Wexler said the applicant has very little facade, it is all glass, there is very little to work with, but the it can be worked with much more handsome. Mr. Ellman said he appreciates Mr. Wexler's input, and will discuss the comments made with all potential tenants. Mr. Wexler said he can't believe Kinko's would have the lighting on the letters applied to it as opposed to letters jumping out. It's just as visible from anywhere else, but just a more subtle, elegant way of lighting the building. Mr. Ellman said signage is one of the hot buttons of national retailers, and will certainly discuss this with future tenants. Mr. Gunther polled the Board members, who all were in favor of the application. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2256 be closed, and the application be and hereby is, adjourned to the next meeting when a response is received from the CZMC. APPROVAL OF MINUTES On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the Minutes of December 18, 1996 were approved, 4-0. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the Minutes of January 22, 1997, were approved, 4-0. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Gunther said an application of Richard Hein, 44 Sheldrake Avenue, had been previously before the Board and asked the secretary to remind the Board three months later about the status of the application. Mr. Gunther said that since Mr. Hein has not acted on the application, nor has he responded to our requests to find out if he is interested, the application is withdrawn. Zoning Board February 26, 1997 Page 21 Mr. Gunther said the comments Mr. Wexler made about signs and how the BAR deals with them was an excellent point and thought it would be beneficial to send a memo expressing the Zoning Board's concerns regarding signage for future applications. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Wexler to draft a memo regarding same which he will review and submit to the Zoning Board members for their review, to be voted on at the next meeting before being sent to the BAR. Mr. Gunther said the communication process needs to be there. Ms. O'Keeffe said the Town is planning to beautify the corner of the Boston Post Road and Weaver Street and the new Hommocks Road to the school by installing flower beds and better light poles, etc., and next to it will be Kinko's signage. It could be like the Ann Taylor signage, where you can see it, and it is elegant looking. A discussion ensued regarding signage, and Ms. Gallent said an applicant always has to apply to the BAR for approval. The Zoning Board is only approving the location of the sign in case #2256. If the sign is changed in any way, the applicant will have to reappear before the BAR. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, and seconded by Ms. Martin, the public meeting was adjourned and the Board went into the Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on March 19, 1997. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. Mar to Roma, Recording Secretary