Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_01_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JANUARY 22, 1997, 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 Arthur Wexler Absent: J. Rene Simon <$, OE% Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel y� William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector REctivtD MAR 1997 Stephanie Hanak, Public Stenographer Pi Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. I� ' 49 Eighth Street C " New Rochelle, New York 10801 IR/ Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 8:00 p.m. Mr. Gunther said before the start of the meeting there are a few administrative matters to cover. Mr. Simon, one of the Board members is not present as there is conflict with another Town Board meeting that he must attend. There are only four Board members out of the potential five present. A case can be heard and move forward, but three Board members must vote on an action to for it to be effective. When an application is called, the applicant can either proceed or the application can be held over until the next meeting, without prejudice. Mr. Gunther said the approval of minutes will be done at the end of the meeting. Mr. Gunther informed the Board members, from an administrative point of view, that a minor change in procedure will be instituted at the start of this meeting; i.e. as evidence is presented from applicants,it will be directed to the secretary, logged in, appropriately numbered and then it will be passed to the Board members for review. Mr. Gunther asked for everyone's patience during this procedure, that conversation stop at that moment while the recording secretary records the evidence into the record. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2250 (adjourned 12/18/96) 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. Zoning Board January 22, 1997 Page 2 Donald S. Mazin, attorney for the applicant, appeared. Mr. Mazin said at the last meeting the Board had requested certain documentation and plans which have been prepared. He called upon his client, Mr. Branca, to speak to the Board to explain what has been prepared. Anthony Branca of 69 Harding Road, Old Greenwich,CT., the secretary of the corporation,then addressed the Board regarding the exhibits submitted as follows: Exhibit#24-revised rendering of the building,due to changes proposed;shutters were taken out;windows were enlarged; enlarged the dormer areas; have a 2 ft. covered entrance way with two columns; the footprint remains the same; some windows were changed on the side elevation; front facade changes only; the rear elevation is exactly the same; changed some of the trim on the windows; added a skirt, 24" piece of pine, around the foundation instead of having cedar to ground level. Exhibit#25-driveway views to see the line of site coming in and out of the driveway; submitted four(4) pictures from the approximate left and approximate right side of driveway; driveway 14 ft. wide at that point; discussed the lines of sight. Exhibit#26 - landscaping plan prepared by Mr. Branca; purple area is the structure, house and garage; blue area is flagstone walkway and patio in back; gray area is macadam/blacktop; black line, the driveway which will be lined in Belgium Block; Arborvitae will be planted along the back perimeter of the property to provide a green wall between the houses; Hemlocks will be planted along the wall where the school is; continue the green wall by the school area; Blue Spruce or some other species will be planted in the green area; there will be foundation plantings, rhododendrons and flowering type arrangements. Ms. Martin asked what time of day the driveway views were taken, because usually there are many more cars on both sides of the street in that area than what is shown in the photographs, which creates traffic problems. Mr. Branca said the pictures were taken about 2:00 p.m. Mr. Mazin then discussed the 17 ft. setback,an easement the municipality holds, and another 25 ft.beyond that 17 ft. which the building is going to be setback, giving a 42 ft. setback. A discussion ensued regarding ingress and egress from the driveway. Mr. Branca said he feels there is a clear line of site. A discussion ensued regarding blacktop being used for the driveway, rather than gravel that would help alleviate drainage problems, and the Town Engineer's report regarding same. Ms. Gallent said that will be addressed in the Erosion Control Permit process. Mr. Wexler said the plan shows a greater area of driveway, as the original plan called for a 12 ft. wide driveway. Mr. Branca said it is a change, as he wants to be able to park two cars in the driveway and possibly have the cars back onto the property and egress nose front. Mr. Gerety said if there is a change, lot coverage will have to be addressed. Mr. Branca said he thinks he is 300-400 ft. within the tolerance of the Town, but will calculate the lot coverage. Exhibit#27 - drainage and site safety; referred to the engineer's report suggesting no heavy equipment moving when children are going to and from school; fencing off site with a 4 ft . high orange construction fence; red line is area fencing off from the stone wall adjacent to the school and will close in the whole Zoning Board January 22, 1997 Page 3 property, excluding the tail area that will have no construction work done to it other than final grading; the Town engineer recommended if dry well is to be installed,it be installed 15 ft. away from any building structure and tie into the Town's storm system; proposed dry well located towards the front of the property on opposite side of the driveway; leaders and gutters draining underground into the dry well. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Branca to clarify his comment about drainage going into the Town storm sewer. Mr. Branca said in the Town engineer's report it stated that the site, Plan A or Plan B, would not have a significant impact on the area. When he addressed the dry well,he addressed tying into the storm system of the Town, more than likely, for the overflow. Ms. Gallent asked if the sketch confirmed that a minimum distance of 15 ft. from the dry well to all structures would be maintained. Mr. Branca answered yes. Exhibit 28(a)-tree removal plan/Exhibit 28(b)-six(6)related photos numbered to correspond with plan- on the site plan trees bigger than a 6-8" diameter are delineated on the plan; areas indicated with red X, are trees to be removed. Ms. Gallent said a tree removal permit would be required. Mr. Gerety said an unimproved lot, 20,000 sq. ft., needs a tree removal permit. Exhibit#29 - color-coded drawing of the lot- green triangle is the as-of-right building envelope; orange is the house; pink is an area that extrudes outside of the building envelope, along with the 5 ft. portion in the front. Ms. Gallent said that one of the items asked for at the previous meeting was a comparison between the earlier application and this one. Mr. Branca said there is a comparison of the prior application and the proposed application on record in a memo form. Exhibit#30-analysis of prior application to the current application-prior application had the house moved 10 ft. forward from the present proposal; was a larger house approximately 2,500-2,600 ft. range; everything was toward the front; proposed house is 3,000 sq. ft., pushed back, optimized the building envelope with minimum encroachments; former garage was forward and parallel with the house with a setback of 15 ft. plus the Town's 17 ft.; the current proposal is set back 25 ft. plus the 17 ft. on all areas. A discussion ensued regarding the tree removal plan, and the fact that some of the trees delineated are not on the applicant's property. Mr. Gunther asked about the difference in the square footage of the current proposed house and that proposed by Mr. Fisher. Mr. Branca said the square footage on the proposed house is slightly over 2,000 sq. ft.; the square footage on the house that Ira Fisher had proposed originally was 2,400-2,600 sq. ft. A discussion ensued regarding what was stated in the application, --slightly under 1,909 sq. ft. Mr. Gunther asked for clarification on what the colors represent in exhibit#29. Mr. Mazin said the green is the allowable building envelope, as-of-right, the orange is what is currently proposed, and the red is one of the variances required. Zoning Board January 22, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Branca said lot coverage was recalculated taking into account the additional driveway space, allowable lot coverage is 35%, 2,418 ft.; the lot coverage including the expanded driveway is 1,641 ft., 20-22%. A discussion ensued, after Mr. Mann informed the Board the porch was removed, there is a projecting 2 ft. architectural overhang feature in the front and there is no need for a variance for the porch. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Branca to clarify what the applicant is allowed to build as-of-right, and why that would be unacceptable or a hardship as to what is proposed. Mr. Branca said at the last meeting he discussed the as-of-right plans which the Board reviewed and said in order to get square footage out of the envelope the entire envelope would have to be used which means he would be building a triangular shaped house approximately 1,600-1,650 sq. ft. The hardship is basically the ability to acquire the additional square footage. Mr. Kelleher asked if a triangular shaped house would be more difficult to market. Mr. Branca said it would be a hardship to market, and would not fit into the style of the community nor be an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Branca would like to address the other items requested by the Board or whether the Building Department representative would like to address the items and give a summary; i.e. a copy of the letter from the Town Engineer that was sent to Mr. Branca. Mr. Mazin said the Board asked if the applicant could find out if there were any underground streams. He met with Mr. Jakubowski, the Building Inspector, and Mr. Gerety, the Assistant Building Inspector, and reviewed the flood plain map. The property was not in the flood plain, and checked the contour maps and the lines mentioned by Mr. Gunther were determined by the building inspector to be directions of flow of the water. Mr. Jakubowski could not find that the property was located directly over a stream. In the report of the engineer, from the material he had available, he could not make a determination whether it was or was not over a stream. Mr. Gerety said the matter was discussed in depth with Mr. Trachtman, the Consulting Engineer, and Shimon Gitliz, the Highway Superintendent. There is a storm drainage system that was mentioned that collects to a 36 in. storm drain. That particular location on Murray and Colonial seems to be the bottom of the drainage basin in that area, and there is no official record in any of the building files regarding flooding of basements in any of the adjacent properties. Mr. Gerety said there is no way to determine, based on any of the maps or data in the building department, whether or not there is a stream underground. Mr. Mazin said he was sent a copy of the report and the conclusion of Mr. Trachtman was that it appears that the construction of the proposed residence under either alternative design would not significantly effect the drainage conditions in the vicinity of the site,and continued reading the comments in Mr. Trachtman's letter which is part of the record. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. A discussion ensued regarding the runoff of the property. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members or the public. David Lichtenstein of 87 Colonial appeared and was concerned about the material being used for the construction fence, the angle of the house and the variances requested. Zoning Board January 22, 1997 Page 5 Elisa Follis of 190 Murray Avenue appeared and asked to see the tree exhibit. After viewing same, she said a few of the trees that are marked for removal are on her property line and she would like the trees to remain. Mr. Branca said the trees can remain. Ms. Follis then asked why Mr. Branca chose Arborvitae to border her house, and the use of Hemlocks against the wall. A discussion ensued as Mr. Branca proceeded to explain the growth span of the various plantings. Ms. Follis asked if the Town requires the plantings to be a certain height, requesting the plantings be at least 6-7 ft. when planted. Mr. Wexler said the Board can make a condition regarding the height of the plantings. Charles Doherty of 12 Colonial Avenue appeared, and said most of the people on Colonial Avenue and Murray Avenue are concerned about the water problem. Mr. Doherty asked Mr. Branca if the house was going to be built on a slab, if he intended to blast rock, and asked about the depth of the dry well. Mr. Branca said the house will have a basement, and he does not intend to blast rock. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Doherty to raise his questions, and said at the end the applicant will respond in general. He said the Town Engineer will require a specific amount of capacity in the dry well, which the applicant will have to meet. Mr. Gunther said the applicant has to provide for the runoff of the water on the property. This is done by a permit process, a bond must be posted with the Town, and it has to be inspected. Mr. Gerety said there are several ways to deal with the surface water stating there are shallow dry wells that are acceptable, called infiltrators, on the market that are used quite frequently and are adequate. Ms. Gallent said if the Zoning Board grants a variance, it is granted for the particular plans that have been submitted. If the footprint is changed, the applicant must reappear. Vivian Frommer of 16 Colonial Avenue appeared and spoke about a number of her concerns; traffic, driveway blacktop; aesthetics; setbacks; dry well and drainage;basement flooding;water collection;safety of the children. Mr. Gunther said that by building a house on the lot and providing the dry well or other mechanisms to handle the runoff, it will be reducing the amount of water from that property onto any adjoining properties. The dry well will handle the effects of a 100-year storm on the surface that is being placed on the property. A discussion ensued regarding the above issues. Ms. Frommer asked if the Town is ready to put in a larger storm drain. Mr. Wexler said it is not a Zoning Board issue, but a Town Board matter. Ms. Gallent said the applicant is applying to the Zoning Board for a variance to build a house that is on the plan. If it is denied, the applicant can still build an as-of-right house that will have a driveway. It is not relevant for the Board's consideration,because even if the variance is denied the condition,as-of-right, permits the building of a house on that lot as it is a buildable lot. Ms. Frommer said she hopes the Board will take a serious look at this application. Zoning Board January 22, 1997 Page 6 Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions, and asked if Mr. Martin would care to respond. Mr. Branca responded to the concerns addressed. Safety is a concern for the applicant also and said he did speak previously about putting up a chain link fence on the property, but the engineer's report from Malcolm Pimie of the Town suggested a different approach; i.e use construction fencing and not run heavy equipment when the children are going to and from school alleviating a constructive nuisance for the children, which the applicant opted to use, but said he will follow the direction of the Town. Mr. Mazin said if the chain link fence is up, there is no reason the equipment cannot be operated at any time. Mr. Kelleher asked how many days the machine will be needed. Mr. Branca said two days tops. Ms. Martin made a point that the area in question is in use all day, not only by school children, but by community members and stressed the importance of proper screening. Again, Mr. Branca expressed his willingness to follow whatever the Town suggests for safety. Mr. Kelleher said the engineer's recommendation for the use of the standard industry accepted construction safety fence is a good suggestion. It is far less attractive and more difficult for children trying to scale over. Mr. Branca addressed the water issue, stating that both the Town Engineer and his engineer's reports said it did not have a significant impact. The applicant will do whatever the Town says as far as the dry well to minimize the water, which will be addressed by the size of the dry well. Mr. Branca then clarified the driveway issue, stating the two car lengths is on the property, with only one car length out on the street, a 12-14 ft. wide belly coming out into the street going into 12 ft. wide and then bellying back out again around the garage. Only one car will be able to go in and out of the driveway at a time. A discussion ensued regarding the driveway and the angle of the garage. Mr. Branca addressed the item of the property being a collection site for water. He said the property is higher than any of the adjacent properties, and water will run off onto other properties. Mr. Branca said in reference to the setback issue, the way the house is with the requested 5 ft. variance, it is still further back from the road than any of the neighboring houses. Mr. Gunther read a memo from the Building Inspector regarding exhibit#23-Sample Properties/R-6 Zone Setback Requirements, from the previous meeting, which is a part of the record. Mr. Gunther said a copy of the Assignment of the application and the Deed to the property was also received. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Kelleher commented that counsel stated a fundamental point a few moments ago that any developer/builder has a right, they are entitled, to put a structure on this piece of property. The fact that this applicant and his predecessor wanted to build something that did require a variance, gave an opportunity for the neighborhood to express their concerns as to water, safety and the effect a house on that piece of property would have in the general environment of the neighborhood. There could be a house conforming to the existing statutes at this point in time, and no one would have had an opportunity to speak before the Board regarding the concerns mentioned. There is an entitlement to put a house on that piece of property. Zoning Board January 22, 1997 Page 7 A discussion ensued regarding the study of the ability to reorientate the garage, to allow a back-out area, due to concern about the relationship of the driveway to Daymon, which Yuly Aronson, president of the company and an engineer, of 174 Plainhill Road, Stamford, CT addressed. Mr. Wexler said the applicant is proposing that the one-car detached garage, the front face of it, be set at the required 30 ft. setback from the front property line, the east side of the garage closest to the proposed two story frame house be 6 ft. from that house and that garage, approximately 21.6 ft. deep going towards the rear of the property, be parallel to the side property line, which would give the applicant the ability to have a slightly smaller than required double width of paved area in front of the garage for a second car. This would create an area where a car exiting the garage can back into the area, turn around and exit the property front forward. That would yield a 3 ft. side lot line at the east corner of the garage. Ms. Gallent said the if that were the case, the application would have to be renoticed. Mr. Gerety said if it is less than 4 ft. from the side yard, it may require a State variance for the fire separation. Mr. Kelleher said if there was no hearing and the developer was building an as-of-right house, the Board would not be discussing the driveway nor the garage. The discussion continued regarding the liability of granting a condition that is potentially dangerous, and the option presented regarding the driveway. Mr. Branca said the Board is not approving a variance for the driveway or the garage, as it is not a part of the variance hearing. Ms. Gallent said the Board would be directing her, at this hearing, only to draft the resolution which would not be available until the next meeting. If a change is required, the Board can get a sense this evening as to whether the Board would approve a plan that would be varied taking into account Mr. Wexler's suggestions if the applicant agrees, which could all be done at the next meeting. Mr. Kelleher said all the concerns are legitimate;i.e. water, safety; adding a structure to the neighborhood. A developer has a right to build a house that is going to be in the middle of those concerns. More time has been spent talking about issues that have nothing to do with for what the applicant's request for a variance. Mr. Gunther said if there are no further questions from the public or the applicant, he would like to discuss with the Board members the requirements of the zoning code with respect to granting a variance. The code requires five different requirements the Board must meet in terms of granting a variance. Ms. Gallent said there are five elements that need to be considered in the Board's weighing of the benefit versus the detriment. Mr. Gunther proceeded to read the requirements, as follows: (1) Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by granting of the variance: (a) Mr. Kelleher said the important factor are the words by the granting of the variance, not by the building of the structure. There is a distinction, he is not sure the public is absorbing. Is the detriment caused or not caused by the granting of the variance, not the building of the structure, the entitlement to build a structure. Mr. Gunther asked what percentage of lot coverage is affected by the variance. Zoning Board January 22, 1997 Page 8 Mr. Branca said lot coverage is 3.6%, which includes the 5 ft. area in the front and the triangular piece in the back, which is less than the area in the building envelope that is not being built on. Mr. Kelleher said for the record, the color representation on the exhibit is both the red dot and an orange strip in the front. Mr. Wexler said by granting the variance, the applicant will be trying to make the house more in harmony with the architecture of the community. Mr. Gunther said by allowing a rectangular colonial house to be built on the property as opposed to a triangular as-of-right it is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, and the setback is similar in comparison to others as well. (2) Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance: (a) Mr. Wexler said the applicant feels he can't market the house successfully in this community, using the entire envelope as-of-right, because of the irregular shape of lot. (3) Whether the requested variance is substantial: (a) Mr. Gunther said that was documented in the 3.6% lot coverage statement. (4) Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or the district: (a) Ms. Martin said it may improve the drainage issues; (b) Mr. Kelleher said according to the Town Engineer's report, the neighborhood will be better off as far as the drainage issue is concerned; (c) Mr. Wexler said the drainage issue was not an issue generated by the proposed house, but concerns generated by the neighborhood, and will not adversely impact the neighborhood. (5) Whether the difficulty was self-created or not: (a) Mr. Gunther said that can be considered but is not necessarily required. Mr. Gunther said as a comment for Board members, rather than altering the driveway plan other than what was submitted, it should be left up to the applicant to make a determination as to what driveway configuration he wishes to propose. Mr. Gunther asked if his general sense is that most Board members are generally in favor of the application given the above conditions being considered. Mr. Kelleher he was in agreement with Mr. Gunther. Ms. Gallent said Gary Trachtman's letter should be considered regarding the construction and fencing. Ms. Martin said she is not clear about the fencing and safety, and would like to be sure whichever type of fencing is used it be safe. A discussion ensued regarding the use of a chain link fence or the orange construction fencing suggested. Ms. Gallent asked if the use of orange construction fencing will be paired with the condition of not operating the equipment during-certain hours. Zoning Board January 22, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Mazin said the applicant has consented to that. Mr. Gunther said he has no objection to using what the Town Engineer recommended as well. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Branca about the size of the Arborvitae in the rear. Mr. Branca said the shrubbery will be 4-6 ft. tall trees, measured on top of the ball. A discussion ensued regarding the length of time for growth of the shrubbery. Mr. Wexler asked if there was an umbrella of leaves over that area. Mr. Branca said there were two trees, an 18 in. and 24 in. Maple. Mr. Gunther said in reference to the question about blasting, a condition can be made that there be no blasting and asked for comments from the Board. Mr. Wexler questioned the use of blasting that may be needed for the utility lines. Mr. Gerety said the applicant can be given the choice that it would be preferred if the applicant uses a chipper as opposed to blasting if needed. Mr. Gunther asked is there were any other conditions the Board members would want to include. Mr. Mazin said the Arborvitae would be 6-7 ft. tall measured from the top of the ball, 3-4 ft. on center. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Branca, before conclusion, if he knew what he wanted to do with regard to the garage and driveway. If a change is made, the case will have to be renoticed. If not, the Board will proceed. Mr. Branca said that due to the fact that the garage is not a part of the variance application,he would like to evaluate that, and if approval is granted for the house, then he will come before the Board with another application before constructing the garage. Mr. Mazin asked Mr. Gunther to read back the landscaping requirement condition. Mr. Gunther said the landscaping requirement condition will be to plant 6 ft. Arborvitae measured from top of ball, 3-4 ft. on center. Mr. Gunther said if there are no further comments or questions from the applicant, the public hearing portion of the application will be closed. The Board will meet again next month to review the final wording of the resolution and vote on it at that time. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, and seconded, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing be closed and the application be, and hereby is, adjourned to the February 26, 1997 meeting. Mr. Gunther said that before the next application is read, it has been requested by the applicant that application#3, case 2253, 20 Glen Eagles Drive, be adjourned until the next meeting. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. Zoning Board January 22, 1997 Page 10 Judy Graf asked if future notice of the meeting would be received on this matter, expressing concern for the people who were notified of this meeting and could not attend this evening. Mr. Gunther said notice of the next meeting is being given at this time, which will be February 26, 1997. this particular instance, the applicant chose to adjourn to the next meeting date, since all the Board members are not present this evening. At this point in time, Valerie O'Keeffe, Town Board Liaison, informed the Board that next month's meeting will be held in the Senior Center also,because the Town Board meeting was changed this evening to February 26, 1997. Ms. Graf gave the recording secretary a note addressed to the Board from one of the neighboring residents. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2252 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, Esq., 2001 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont appeared, representing the applicant, along with Robert Stanziale, the architect. Mr. Gunther asked Ms. Battalia if she was aware that a memorandum had been received by the Board from Stephen V. Altieri, the Town Administrator. Ms. Battalia said the secretary gave her a quick chance to review the memorandum this evening, before the start of the meeting. Ms. Battalia said she represents Mr. & Mrs. Auricchio in connection with this application to legalize a longstanding off-site parking lot at 5 Fifth Avenue which is currently being used by Collins Brothers as their employee parking lot and is located across the street. They have been using the parking lot since the early '80's. As best can be determined, the area has been used for off-site parking for at least the last twenty years. Prior to its use by Collins Brothers, the lot was used by a car dealership. Ms. Battalia said when Mr. Auricchio purchased the property in '83 he was advised that it was a legal use and continued to use it in that manner. The Building Inspector determined last year that it was not a legal use, and issued a violation. The applicant has gone through a substantial site plan review by the Planning Board for which approval included a condition that the applicant appear before the Zoning Board. At the last meeting of the Planning Board, it was determined that the Planning Board could not grant this approval as the code provides that only the Zoning Board can. It is substantially and essentially a permitted use, subject to the Board making certain findings. The applicant is not seeking a variance, but the Board's approval under the sections of the code. Ms. Battalia said the code permits off-site parking by Collins Brothers, or any use within 500 ft. to be on another site. This Board must determine that there is no feasible alternative at the site; i.e. Collins Brothers; and that there is sufficient parking for all the uses at the site. Having done that, the Board gives permission. It is not in the form of a variance, but authorization. Ms. Gallent read the Zoning Code sections to the Board pertaining to this case, Section 240-78C and Section 240-79. Zoning Board January 22, 1997 Page 11 Ms. Battalia asked Mr. Stanziale to go over the site plan with the Board. Robert Stanziale of 270 North Avenue, New Rochelle appeared representing Mr. &Mrs. Frank Auricchio. Mr. Stanziale said the existing parking lot has been utilized by Collins Brothers for at least fifteen years, and prior to that for automobile storage for one of the new car dealers. In explaining the site plan drawing, he said that the lot, even though it has a chain link fence separating the area, is one lot. The purpose of this application is to maintain the use of this lot as an accessory lot by Collins Brothers. Mr. Stanziale said to clarify one modification on the plans before the Board, initially 30 parking spaces were indicated on the plans. After that was shown on the plan, Mr. Jakubowski said handicapped parking spaces had to be provided, which consumed the area of another space, hence leaving 29 parking spaces and reduces the required area to 10,150 sq. ft.; the actual gravel area is 10,000 sq. ft. Ms. Battalia discussed the footage and referred to Section 240-4. Mr. Stanziale said the entire site had been reviewed by the Planning board earlier in '96 for an entire site plan approval for rearrangement of parking areas for the present uses that are now in the building and the elimination of the gas pumps. More than the required parking is provided on the existing site, exclusive of the Collins Brothers area. Through the Planning Board review, the matter was also reviewed by CZMC. Mr. Stanziale said he understands that now the matter must be referred back to the CZMC to review the gravel parking area proposed. There was also a review by the BAR and the notations on the plan are recommendations from the BAR for landscaping for the entire site,including the Collins Brothers, site where they had asked for some white pines in the rear and other landscaping in the front. Mr. Gunther asked if there was anything under the gravel; i.e. liner; and what vehicles will be using the parking lot. Mr. Stanziale said there is nothing under the gravel, and the parking lot will only be used for employee and visitor automobiles. Mr. Wexler asked if lighting will be provided in that area. Mr. Stanziale said there will be no lighting in that area. Ms. Battalia said the parking lot area is used as a daytime parking lot for the employees to relieve the parking problem, as the Traffic Committee had previously recommended no parking on Fifth Avenue. A discussion ensued regarding the lot being sufficient to solve the parking needs for Collins Brothers, and the adjacent lot, which is a separate lot used by SAVATREE, who has also gone before the Board. Ms. Battalia said the Board has to make the determinations that counsel read, that the applicant is within the square footage required for the parking lot, give or take 150 sq. ft., there is sufficient parking for all the applicant's uses on the site and Collins Brothers has no other place to park. Mr. Gunther asked if the other building is now rented. Ms. Battalia said the other building is now rented, the tenants will be moving in within the next week and discussed the uses in the building. Ms. Gallent asked how many spaces were on the lot. Ms. Battalia said more than the required. A discussion ensued. Zoning Board January 22, 1997 Page 12 Ms. Gallent said just as an indication, the code requires 14 parking spaces on this site and that portion of the site, but the portion of the site that is not involved in this application has 22 spaces. Mr. Gunther asked if the spaces in the area in between the existing one-story building and the proposed parking are designated for the tenants. Mr. Stanziale said the spaces are designated for the tenants. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant would be developing the whole front of the building. Mr. Stanziale said the applicant still has to go before the BAR for the signage, etc. A discussion ensued. Ms. Gallent said Section 240-78C would only apply to the authorization that the Board could give, where the number of spaces required for two different uses sharing the lot doesn't equal the sum of the two requirements, but that is not an issue in this case. Ms. Battalia said there have been quite a few discussions since the denial as this is the first time an application has been made regarding authorization, and the Board has been asked to rule on it. Mr. Gunther asked from an administrative prospective what needed to be done. Ms. Gallent said the Board needs to comply with SEQRA. This case is an Unlisted Action and because of that, the Local Consistency Law requires the application be referred to the CZMC before the Board can vote. The Board should review the Long Form Environmental Assessment, as at the next meeting the Board will have to make a determination of environmental significance; i.e. either a Negative Declaration or Positive Declaration. Ms. Gallent said CZMC has already seen the application, and proposed a particular condition for an oil drip separator on the site. Mr. Stanziale said that condition was removed, as the original oil separator was for the auto towing service if the area was to be paved. It is not being paved. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2252 is an Unlisted Action, referred to the CZMC for their review, be, and hereby is, adjourned to the February 26, 1996 meeting. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2253 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. This case was adjourned at the beginning of the meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Gunther said the Minutes of the December 18, 1996 meeting will be reviewed at the February 26, 1997 meeting. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther and seconded, the public meeting was adjourned and the Board went into the Executive Session to discuss pending litigation. Zoning Board January 22, 1997 Page 13 NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on February 26, 1997. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. 77) Margue` • Roma, Recording Secretary