Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_09_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 24, 1997, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman Patrick B. Kelleher elf Jillian A. Martin 4 J. Rene Simon Q Arthur Wexler RECEIVED Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel NtIV 3 1991 CIOCC William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector PATRT�OWN C A.LERKO M AMARONECK �j N.Y. Julie Cleary, Public Stenographer l� Terranova, Kazazes &Associates, Ltd. 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:45 p.m. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2276/2290 (adjourned 7/29/97/resubmitted; 9/4/97) Application of Nicholas DeGiacomo for Ray Catena/Lexus requesting a variance to maintain existing side wall sign and install a new side wall sign. The existing "Lexus" sign and three(3) Lexus logos are non- conforming side wall signs pursuant to Section 175-9D and may only remain, pursuant to Section 175-15A through 175-15C, subject to renewal every two(2)years; further, the new additional signage will be a side wall sign prohibited pursuant to Section 175-9D, and the total square footage will be 140.4 sq. ft. where 100.0 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 175-11B all for a business in Business B District on the premises located at 1435 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 411 Lot 249. Nicholas DeGiacomo, the contractor, and Frank Williams, the General Manager of Lexus, appeared. Mr. DeGiacomo stated a meeting was held with the Board of Architectural Review(BAR), and due to the feedback received regarding the size of the sign from prior meetings, submitted documentation showing a sign of reduced size. The letter height was reduced from 24 inches to 18 inches. After discussion and review the BAR approved the reduced design, the subject of the variance request this evening. A discussion ensued regarding the reduced letter signage and the length of the sign, which was reduced from 38 feet 6 inches to 29 feet 7 inches. Ms. Gallent asked the dimensions of the current length of the sign. Mr. Williams said the current length of the sign is 13 feet 3 inches. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 2 Mr. Wexler said the sign over the entry is the question. The original Lexus sign is approximately 26.5 sq. ft. The previously submitted sign was approximately 73 sq. ft., and the new proposal is approximately 44.4 sq. ft. Mr. Williams verified same and referred the Board to the last page of the presentation. The Board discussed the percentage of reduction and what was originally requested. Mr. DeGiacomo said it is a substantial decrease in letter size. A discussion ensued regarding what happens to the stucco when the letters are removed, and the weathering of the stucco. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There being none, he asked if there were any comments and/or questions from the public. Edward Romer of 1444 Boston Post Road appeared. Mr. Romer stated that he chose the area as his residence for many reasons, quality of life being the most important. Mr. Romer continued by discussing the importance of the Town Ordinances on signage and zoning in relation to the proposed application. Mr. Romer closed his presentation asking the members of the Board to reject the proposed application, due to the negative impact it will produce. Eleanor Davidson appeared representing the Flint Park Neighborhood Association. Ms. Davidson responded to comments previously made and said the BAR may not have been aware of all the issues being addressed, that being the whole community sees the sign on the side of the building. Ms. Davidson does not feel it was properly presented. Ms. Davidson said the leaves are beginning to thin out and the sign is already visible. A letter that was written to Mr. Catena, copied to the Zoning Board and the neighborhood,has received no response. The neighborhood would like that the sign not be put on the side of the building and said more can be done to advertise or identify Ray Catena with sidewalk and front signs. MaryLynn Rappaport of 1440 Boston Post Road, directly across the street from Lexus, appeared. Ms. Rappaport brought to the Board's attention that this evening is back-to-school night and many people who would like to have attended the meeting could not. Mr. Rappaport asked the Board to demonstrate 29 feet in the room. Mr. DeGiacomo said the ceiling tiles are 2 feet, and that can be used as a measure. Mr. Gunther asked the size of the side of the building. Mr. DeGiacomo said the finished stucco facade of the building is 128 ft. deep. Ms. Martin asked if consideration had been given to limiting the hours of illumination of the sign. Mr. DeGiacomo said currently everything is set to go off at 10:00 p.m., but if necessary the sign can be turned off earlier. A discussion ensued regarding the signage lights and the illumination of the parking lot lighting. Mr. DeGiacomo said the sign lights are minimal, which is the reason the applicant is before the Board, but the concern is about the parking lot lighting. Ms. Gallent said the Board can impose a condition related to the lighting of the signage. Zoning Board • September 24, 1997 • Page 3 Mr. Wexler said the application is to extend the sign and maintain what currently exists,which was verified by Ms. Gallent. Jane Slater of 7 Birch Lane appeared and stated her confusion regarding the statement that the light from the sign does not make any difference. Mr. Wexler said there is a whole environment involved. The bright lights are in the parking area. Whether there is a light on the sign, Ray Catena Lexus, or not, it will be visible because the parking lot is so bright due to the contrast between the sign, the color when it is not lit,and the building. The record demonstrates that it is the parking lot lights that are objectionable. Ms. Gallent said the Board can impose conditions on approval if they are rationally related to the lighted sign. The record seems to indicate that because the parking lot is so overly lit, the lighting from the sign does not make much of a difference. Ms. Slater continued her presentation stating the Board, this evening,can only address restricting the sign. Ms. Slater said there is not supposed to be sign on the side wall. The sign is very long, it should be no larger than currently exists as it is adjacent to a residential area and it is very visible. Ms. Slater does not understand the process. Ms. Gallent said the applicant has the right to apply for a variance. Ms. Slater said they have a right do apply for a variance, but their right is no greater than the residents' right to ask that it not be done. Lisa Stabile of 1452 Boston Post Road appeared and stated many of the residents could not be at the meeting due to back-to-school night this evening. Ms. Stabile said her apartment directly faces the front and side of Lexus and voiced her concerns regarding the brightness of the parking lot and signs located in the front and side of the building. Ms. Stabile said a decision should be made by the Board not to allow the increase in the lighting or the size of the sign, which effects not only Ms. Stabile but many of the residents in the Town and community. Eleanor Brackbill of 1452 Boston Post Road appeared and read a statement, which is part of the record, from a neighbor, Sandy Pavata of 1440 Boston Post Road, exhibit#1, who could not attend this evening. Ms. Brackbill added her comments regarding Mr. Wexler's speech about the total environment and the parking lot lights. Mr. Williams said if the problem is with the timer that controls the parking lot lights,Ms. Brackbill should notify the police department and the lights will be shut. Edward Romer said individuals are addressing the decreasing of the signage used, but the signage is being increased. John Qinley of 16 Birch Lane appeared and said he does not see any compelling reason why a variance should be granted regarding signage for Lexus, and voiced his concerns. Amy Silvester of 1452 Boston Post Road appeared and said she is also not interested in having another sign put at the Lexus dealership. Ms. Silvester and her husband feel the lights and sign are already large enough. A larger sign will be very unfortunate for the residents of the apartment at 1452 Boston Post Road and commented on other Lexus dealerships. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. There being none, Mr. Gunther closed the public hearing. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other comments or questions from the Board members. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if the applicant cared to respond. Mr. DeGiacomo said most of the comments made concerned the brightness of the lighting from the parking lot. Mr. DeGiacomo said a gentlemen from the BAR, an expert on lighting, said the additional signage is like a drop of water in the ocean. All that is being sought is to identify the Lexus Dealership. Mr. Williams said Ray Catena has been in business since 1955, and his name has value. It is important to have Ray Catena's name identified with this business. Mr. Catena has spent millions of dollars on this location,which previously was a pigsty, and said there is a maintenance crew working the building seven days a week keeping the area clean. Mr. Williams said the illumination is necessary for security reasons, as there have been four or five cars stolen from the lot,which can be verified with the Mamaroneck Town Police. The Mamaroneck Town Police work in the evenings to secure the area. A discussion ensued regarding another sign on the building,not a part of this application,and the fact that Lexus has rules regarding signage. Mr. Simon asked why not put the sign somewhere else on the building, such as in the window. Mr. Williams said an illuminated sign cannot be put on glass. Mr. DeGiacomo said the design currently on the building fits in architecturally. Mr. Jakubowski said a window sign on glass is limited to 8 sq. ft. Mr. Wexler said the neighbors in back, not the Post Road side, claim there are breaks in the screening which is there to protect the residential community from the lights on the side of the building. Mr. Williams said that Lexus spent $13,000.00 more than what was originally approved on screening. Mr. Wexler said due to the constant opposition from a group of neighbors being bombarded with the activity, it might be wise to fill the gaps. Mr. Williams said it is a factor he can discuss with the Ray Catena, if that is a condition of approval. Mr. Wexler said the BAR stated the application was reviewed and approved with a request made for Ray Catena Lexus to review the lighting,and asked if that had been done as this seems to be disturbing a good number of the residents. Mr. Williams said there has not been time to review the existing lighting. Mr.Wexler asked if the intensity of lighting of the parking lot is for security,which Mr.Williams verified. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Jakubowski what the lighting requirements are for parking areas in terms of minimum lighting. Mr. Jakubowski said he did not know how far beyond the minimum the lighting is. The lighting was subject to discussions at the time of the site plan. There was a great deal of discussion on lighting. The extra$13,000.00 spent on shrubbery came about after shrubbery had been placed on the site. The residents on the back streets were unsatisfied with the shrubbery and prior to issuing a Certificate of Occupancy Ray Catena Lexus put in more shrubbery to screen the area better. The idea of the shrubbery is to soften the impact on the neighbors,not to close it off entirely or immediately. When the trees grow it may take care of the screening, that is not known. Now the situation is to put signs on the side wall. Barring changing the side wall sign, the question would be how much signage can be put on the front wall. If the effort is Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 5 to soften the impact on the Post Road, putting 100 sq. ft. of lighting on the front wall facing the apartment house would be legally allowed and could be done. Mr. Wexler asked if the apartment house in question directly faces Lexus, as there are two apartment houses in that area, the Gables and Alden House. Mr. Jakubowski said Alden House does not directly face Lexus, but the apartments above the former restaurant do look onto the Boston Post Road. The Board referred to and commented on the tax map in regard to Lexus, Block 411 Lot 249. Mr. Gunther read into the record the memorandum from the BAR approving the submission,and also the memorandum from the CZMC. Ms. Gallent said the matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board, which did not have any comment. Mr. Gunther closed the public hearing on the application and prior to making a motion on the matter, asked for and received a sense of the Board regarding the application. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Ms. Martin, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. WHEREAS, this application is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and the Board has adopted a Negative Declaration, because the EAF reveals that the action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact; and On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was ADOPTED, 4-1, Mr. Gunther opposed: WHEREAS, Nicholas DeGiacomo for Ray Catena/Lexus has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain existing side wall sign and install a new side wall sign. The existing"Lexus"sign and three(3)Lexus logos are non-conforming side wall signs pursuant to Section 175-9D and may only remain, pursuant to Section 175-15A through 175-15C,subject to renewal every two (2) years; further, the new additional signage will be a side wall sign prohibited pursuant to Section 175- 9D,and the total square footage will be 111.8 sq. ft. where 100.0 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed pursuant to Section 175-11B all for a business in Business B District; and WHEREAS,the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 175-9D; Section 175-15A through 175-15C, Section 175-11B; and WHEREAS, Nicholas DeGiacomo for Ray Catena/Lexus 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, including members of the neighboring residences, a lighting expert, and others; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board sought the input of the Board of Architectural Review ("BAR") on the aesthetic impact of the proposed additional signage; and WHEREAS, the BAR indicated by memo, dated September 23,1997, that the lighting of the proposed additional signage would not create any significant impact on the surrounding residences; and Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 6 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 variances sought are granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. No undesirable change will be produced as a direct result of this application. The Board heard credible testimony from a lighting expert that the additional signage will add only an insignificant amount of additional illumination to that which is already present, due to the intense lighting in the parking lot. The BAR concurred in this expert opinion. In addition,given the condition that the front sign is not illuminated, there will be a reduction in illumination from the original 53 sq. ft. to 44.4 sq. ft.,an approximately 22% reduction in illuminated signs on site; B. Due to franchise requirements, there is no reasonable alternative to accomplishing the applicant's goal of identifying the dealership as belonging to Ray Catena without requiring a variance. The applicant revised its original proposal to require a lessor variance, reducing the height of the letters from 24 inches to 18 inches; C. The variance is not substantial; D. The variance will not have a negative impact on the environment for the area. As described above, the security lighting in the parking lot overwhelms the lighting from the sign; E. 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; F. 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; G. 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 "LEXUS" sign on the front of the building facing the Boston Post Road shall be maintained as a non-illuminated, non-lighted sign. 2. The lighting on the side wall sign shall be extinguished upon the exit from the building of the last customer or 9:00 p.m., whichever occurs first. 3. The existing side wall sign shall be reduced in size as shown in the revised plan, dated September 22, 1997. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 7 4. The applicant shall make a good faith effort to examine the present security lighting for the parking lot and determine whether there is a way of keeping the lot sufficiently illuminated to serve the security needs of the business, while at the same time shielding the Post Road from excessive illumination and light spillage. 5. The applicant will make a good faith effort to reevaluate the present screening and improve the shielding of Birch Road. 6. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 7. 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. 8. 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 asked if there were any other comments or questions from the Board. A discussion ensued regarding the stolen vehicles and the concentration of lighting regarding same. Mr. Jakubowski said under conditions of a sign variance, a side wall sign has to be reviewed in two years. Mr. Catena and Mr. Williams have two years of good faith in which to review the lighting and reduce the lighting as much as possible before future renewal. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2282 (adjourned 9/4/97) Application of Robert Gurrerio requesting a variance to maintain awning sign. The awning letters as exist measure 2.0 ft. in height and the awning numerals as exist measure 1.0 ft. in height where 6 in. is the maximum height permitted for awning graphics pursuant to Section 175-11L of the Sign Law; and further, the lettering consists of two separate lines where a single line is the maximum permitted for awning lettering pursuant to Section 175-11L of the Sign Law for a business use in an SB Zone District on the premises located at 2434 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 326.1. Dolores Battalia, of Stein & Battalia of 2001 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont appeared on behalf of the applicant. Ms. Battalia presented a scaled drawing to the Board, marked exhibit#1, stating at the last meeting Mr. Wexler requested the architect to revise his drawings to scale. Ms. Battalia said the matter was also referred to the CZMC and Westchester County at the last meeting. Mr. Gunther read the section of the Special Permit previously approved in January, 1991, that was subject to additional conditions imposed by the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding limitation of canopy height and limitation on the size of the pole sign on front of the premises, the "menu" sign at the rear of the property and illumination of same. Ms. Battalia pointed out that the pole sign has been removed. When the applicant purchased in the Spring, the site plan was revised in connection with asking for the new Special Permit. Mr. Gunther asked if there is a new sign on the premises. • Zoning Board • September 24, 1997 Page 8 Ms. Battalia said there is a new sign, but not a pole sign, a monument sign. Ms. Battalia provided the Board with a new set of photographs, marked exhibit#2. Ms. Battalia said the business is a commercial operation in a business commercial zone and area. The whole area, at the southerly end of the Boston Post Road, was redesigned according to the Master Plan to encourage businesses in a commercial base for the Town. The car wash has been at that location for a long period of time, and every two years the Special Permit must be renewed and when ownership changes. There have never been any complaints about operation. As previously stated, the awning was replaced by the prior owner after a storm, and the design and placement of the lettering was changed, not the size of the lettering. The signage is completely in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Battalia asked the Board to review the pictures presented, which was done. Ms. Battalia said at both ends of the Post Road, within the Town's jurisdiction, there is signage with lettering of equal and larger size. In the immediate surrounding area, there is Lexus. Ms. Battalia said the business is not in a residential area. The residences are far behind. No one has appeared in opposition to any of the applications that have come before the Board. Staples and Nature's Warehouse have a pole entryway sign immediately adjacent. With the pole sign eliminated,the applicant needs the awning signage for identification. Ms. Battalia then pointed out other establishments in the area that have equal size lettering signage. Ms. Battalia said that inquiries about the cost of the canopy indicated that it cost $11,000.00. The signs are not separate and cannot be removed, it is silk screened lettering, which has been coated to protect the lettering. Mr. Wexler said from observation it appears as an applied letter. Ms. Battalia said she was told it is thickly screened. Ms. Battalia said there will be no detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. It is a commercial neighborhood. The sign is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. If the signage were to be removed, the applicant will suffer in that he will be surrounded by the signage from the other businesses. There is no other feasible way for this to be addressed. The request is not self- created, as the applicant bought the business. There was no violation. The prior owner did not realize in changing the style of the signage he was in violation. The sign is in harmony with the commercial district in which it falls. Mr. Gunther asked if the original Zoning Board certification was available, to see if it noted the size of the letters. Mr.Jakubowski said the Zoning Board certification would not have indicated the size of the letters,because with the combination of the logo and type of letters it would be adjusted. A discussion ensued regarding applications by the previous owner of the car wash who had several other car washes in other areas which were visited and the lettering and signage were identical. Ms. Battalia said five Special Permits have been requested on the location, because of the change of ownership and the two year rule. The owner that changed the sign would not have been the original owner in the '91 application. A discussion ensued regarding the revised drawing, the measurement of the signage and spacing of the letters. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Jakubowski if the application will come before the Board again in two years. Mr. Jakubowski said no. Ms. Battalia said the Special Permit which runs with the operator of the business, will come back to the Planning Board in two years, but the variance will run with the land. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Wexler asked if the Board can limit the variance to the canopy being discussed, because the canopy was damaged and a new one installed. Ms. Gallent said the Board approves a variance with respect to the plans submitted. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the previous owner not realizing he had to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals to change the graphics. Ms. Battalia asked if the Board was objecting to the canopy or the graphics. Mr. Wexler said the Board is objecting to the graphics. Mr. Wexler would like to see it run with the land as a variance. Ms. Gallent said if the applicant wanted to put up the same thing, it would run with the land. If it is changed, the applicant will have to reapply. Ms. Battalia said a sign variance is renewable every two years. After some discussion, Ms. Battalia said if the canopy was damaged and the owner wanted to change the signage, the owner would have to apply for an amendment to the site plan for any change in lettering. Ms. Battalia said it appeared that the Board wanted to limit the life span of the letters. Mr. Wexler said that was correct. Ms. Gallent said the applicant would have to apply to the BAR. After a detailed discussion regarding damaged signs, Ms. Gallent said Mr. Jakubowski has found another provision of the sign law, which states "any non-conforming sign which becomes unsafe or is removed for any reason may not be replaced except by a sign conforming". Ms. Gallent said the applicant would have to apply to the Board for a variance to replace this awning sign if it were damaged. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0, Ms. Martin was not present. WHEREAS, this application is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and the Board has adopted a Negative Declaration, dated September 24, 1997, because the EAF reveals that the action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact; and On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert Gurrerio has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain awning sign. The awning letters as exist measure 2.0 ft. in height and the awning numerals as exist measure 1.0 ft. in height where 6 in. is the maximum height permitted for awning graphics pursuant to Section 175-11L of the Sign Law; and further, the lettering consists of two separate lines where a single line is the maximum permitted for awning lettering pursuant to Section 175-11L of the Sign Law for a business use in an SB Zone District on the premises located at 2434 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Lot 326.1; 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 175-11L; and Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 10 WHEREAS, Robert Gurrerio 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 Town Law §175-15 and 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 does not create any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, as it merely permits the continuance of an existing condition; B. The non-complying condition appears to be the only reasonable alternative, because the awning, which was replaced after storm damage, cost $11,000.00 and the letters cannot be removed without replacing the awning; C. The variance is not substantial; D. The variance will not have an adverse effect on the environment; E. 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; F. 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; G. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance shall expire two years from the date hereof in accordance with Town Code §175-15(c). 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: Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 11 APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2286 Application of M/M Cardoza requesting a variance to construct a front entry vestibule. The front entry as proposed would have a front yard setback of 27.5 ft.where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 38B(1) for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 49 N. Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Lot 72. Benedict Salanitro, P.E., of 517 Linden Street, Mamaroneck appeared, representing the applicant. Mr. Salanitro said the applicant is requesting a 2'h ft. front yard variance to erect a front entrance vestibule at 49 N. Chatsworth Avenue. The owner is seeking to create the vestibule for circulation, as currently there is no vestibule in the home and is in keeping with the neighboring home, #50,which the proposed vestibule will resemble. Mr. Wexler said it looks like an overhang. Mr. Salanitro said the drawing was amended this evening, marked exhibit#1. Mr. Salanitro said an awning is shown, he reviewed the awning law and asked Mr. Jakubowski if an awning is part of a structure. A discussion ensued regarding the awning mentioned as shown in exhibit#1, which was removed. Mr. Salanitro said the vestibule is identical to the vestibule built next door. The variance requested is minor and will not have any adverse impact to the quality of life or health and welfare of the neighborhood. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Jakubowski if the house in the picture before the Board is on the tax map. Mr. Jakubowski said the house was on the tax map. The Board reviewed the tax map and discussed the paper street which was granted a permanent easement by the Town. Mr. Wexler asked if the pitch on the roof extension is the same as the pitch on the house. Mr. Salanitro said the pitch is below. Mr. Wexler said the pitch can be brought up another 8 in. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Wexler, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 4-0, Ms. Martin was not present. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, M/M Cardoza have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a front entry vestibule. The front entry as proposed would have a front yard setback of 27.5 ft.where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1)for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 49 N. Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Lot 72; and Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 12 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 240-38B(1); and WHEREAS, M/M Cardoza 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. There will be no adverse impact on the neighborhood. In fact, the adjacent house has the same vestibule; B. There is no other feasible way the applicant can achieve the goal of having a vestibule if not in the front of the house; C. The variance is not substantial as the request is for a front yard setback of 27.5 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required which is a 2.5 ft. variance within an area of about 25% of the front facade; D. 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; E. 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; 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 subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The pitch of the roof of the vestibule shall be changed to a minimum of 6 in. on 12 in. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 13 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Jakubowski informed Mr. Salanitro go get the permit before starting work. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2287 Application of Neil Carnow for Pier I Imports requesting a variance to erect two signs. The sign on the west elevation would have a height of 3 ft. 9 in. where a maximum height of 32 in. is allowed pursuant to Section 175-11B and said sign would project above the front parapet which is prohibited from projecting above the top of the building surface upon which it is placed pursuant to Section 175-11B. The sign on the north elevation would have a height of 3 ft. 1 in. where a maximum of 32 in. is allowed pursuant to Section 175-11B. Said sign would be on a side wall of a building which is not permitted also pursuant to Section 175-11B; and further, the total square footage of the two signs would be 139.15 sq. ft. where a maximum square footage of 100 sq. ft. is allowed for all signs pursuant to Section 175-11B all for a business building in the Urban Renewal 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, the architect,appeared representing the owner of the building and Pier I Imports, the present tenant for the building. Mr. Camow gave the Board a brief history up to this point in time. Mr. Camow was previously before the Board with a request and received a variance for a sign on the north face of the building facing the parking lot. At that time, Kinko's was the intended tenant. Subsequent to receiving the variance, Kinko's opted out of the deal. Subsequent to that, Pier I entered into negotiations with the owner of the building and is now doing interior work in the building. Pier I also needs a sign on the north facade of the building. The Board was originally approached for a variance for a sign on the side of the building, as there was an existing monument sign at the entrance to the property which the owner removed of his own accord after discussions with the Town. In order to replace the visibility of signage that had previously been available by the monument sign, that was one of the reasons the sign on the north face was originally granted. The location of the sign was determined from the front corner of the building at approximately 2' ft. back from the front edge which mirror imaged a sign requested, at that time, for a legal sign, as-of-right, on the south facade. When Pier I met with the Board of Architectural Review (BAR), they determined at that time they did not need a sign on the south side. In conversations with the BAR, the BAR requested an additional display window on the north facade. In order for the signage letters to relate properly to the proportion in location of that display window to hold the sign 21/2 ft. away from the corner to match the location of the approved sign for Kinko's, which was the language of the variance at the time, would have made no sense relative to the location inside the display window. Mr. Camow said this evening he is before the Board to discuss relocation of the sign so it is centered over the display window. Mr. Camow said the original variance for Kinko's was for channel letters that were 30 in. high and 27 sq. ft. in area. The sign letters on the north side are 16 sq. ft. in area rather than the original 27 sq. ft. and 18 in. high. The issue is not the size of the letters, it is the size of the background behind the letters which is blue metal. The combination of the blue metal background behind the letters on the north side and the blue metal background the letters on the front facade is the area that exceeds 100 sq. ft., not the size of the letters. The blue metal background behind the signs,on both of the signs, equals 132 sq. ft. exceeding 100 sq. ft. by 32 sq. ft. The size of the actual letters is 69 sq. ft. Mr. Wexler said there are two different types of letters, capital and lower case, and asked if that was correct. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Carnow said all the letters are relatively the same. Mr. Wexler said the 30 in. letter is the capital letter, which Mr. Camow verified. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Camow had a picture of the Pier I logo in color. Mr. Camow presented the Board with a picture, which did not show the actual blue color. After some discussion regarding the color blue, Mr. Jakubowski showed the Board a sample color in the file that was submitted with the application. Mr. Wexler said the picture Mr. Camow showed the Board has a subtle background. Blue is not a subtle background and cheapens the community. The Board reviewed and discussed various pictures before them relating to colors of signs. Mr. Jakubowski said the BAR does not have any problem with the colors of the sign. Mr. Camow said the size of the metal background behind the letters seems to be the issue. Without the background the letters are 69 sq. ft., the lettering 31 sq. ft. as stated on the drawing. Michael Dick asked to see the pictures the Board was reviewing, which was done. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Mr. Wexler asked who is responsible for the improvement being made to the building, the owner or Pier I. Mr. Carnow said Pier I is responsible for the improvements being made. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. Phyllis Shtem of 3 Hommocks Road appeared and said she is adjacent to the property. The sign might reflect on her property and asked where the signs will be placed. Mr. Camow explained where the signs will be placed. A discussion ensuing regarding the placement of the sign, and the fact that neither sign will be above the building. Mr. Camow personally inspected the Shtem property and the Dick property and said the sign cannot be seen from Ms. Shtern's house, and it is difficult to see the sign from Mr. Dick's house. Michael Dick of 1 Rockridge Road, Larchmont appeared. Mr. Dick said he is much happier with this proposal than the previous proposal. Mr. Dick asked if there would be any up-light, which Mr. Camow said no, although the elevation of the property is 20 ft. up and they look down on Pier I. Mr. Dick feels it is not good for himself in addition to the community as a whole. Mr. Dick said that corner is busy with Block Buster lights, the Gap lights and the Supermarket lights. There is a tremendous glow in his back yard and house. Mr. Dick asked why they need a sign on the north or south of the structure, as the business is next to the road and can be seen. Mr. Camow said the design of the signage has solid sides, projects 8 in. from the background and there is no light spillage on the sides. Mr. Carnow then proceeded to explain in detail the components of the sign and the amount of light projected from the sign. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 15 Mr. Camow then explained in detail why the signs are needed on the building north and south, and also addressed the elimination of the monument sign. The size of the signage has been reduced, designing the signage so it has minimal impact in terms of lighting. It has no light spillage on the side and is a relatively small sign in an area where the tenant must have it for identification. Mr. Dick said he deals with high hats and the bulb itself is recessed 3 in. to 4 in. into the ceiling and there is spillage on the side. Mr. Wexler said there is higher intensity and much more wattage in the high hat bulb. A discussion ensued regarding spillage from lighting. Mr. Wexler said Mr. Dick will be able to read the sign distinctly, but there will be no spillage. Mr. Carnow said it is not a lighting level that illuminates an area. It is simply a letter that will be seen. There is not enough lighting level from it to illuminate any other surface. A discussion ensued regarding whether it is a legal left-hand turn from the other side of the road. Valerie O'Keeffe of 11 Dante Street, said that was a question she was going to ask. The State Law says you can't cross a double yellow line unless there is a cut in the double yellow and asked if there is a cut in the double yellow line at that location. If not, doesn't the fact that a sign is going to be put up on the north side of the building when people are going south it will encourage people to cross the double yellow line. With respect to the demolition of the monument sign, didn't the Town Board pass a law prohibiting the erection of new monument signs and taking out pole signs. Before Giant Carpet there was Kenny's. Ms. O'Keeffe asked if there was ever a sign on the north face of the building. Mr. Jakubowski said Kenny's had a pylon sign that was extended above the roof and Kenny's carpet sign was specifically the reason that the Town rewrote the Ordinance. Mr. Jakubowski said it was later discovered that Kenny's did not own the property the sign was located on. It was a New York State right- of-way and they did not have permission from New York State. If it were a sign applied to the building it would be allowed to be 100 sq. ft. Mr. Dick said it would be important to address whether the double line can be crossed. If it is encouraging someone to make a left turn into the premises by the sign and it is an illegal left turn, that is something that should not be. If it is approved, can the sign be shut off after the store is closed. Mr. Jakubowski said that is part of the Sign Law, and read the appropriate law. Mr. Dick asked if a condition can be made that after business the sign must be shut off. Mr. Kelleher said the answer is yes, a condition can be made regarding same. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. Mr. Gunther asked if counsel recalls if evidence was submitted for the need for a sign on the north side because of the potential traffic problem which resulted in one or two deaths. Ms. O'Keeffe said the deaths occurred with a vehicle turning left into the Stop& Shop. Mr. Gunther said part of the problem was individuals not recognizing where the turn was in time and turning at the last minute. With the trees that exist in front of the building, it is difficult to see the sign from a distance in either direction. That is the logic the Board used when previously approving the sign for Kinko's. Mr. Gunther said it is a point of reference. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 16 Mr. Wexler asked who the decision maker is on the facade of the building. Mr. Camow said Pier I designed it and the BAR approved it. Mr. Kelleher asked what are the normal business hours of a regular Pier I store. Mr. Camow said probably the norm of retail business, he did not know. Mr. Gunther read into the record a memorandum received from the Board of Architectural Review and a notification from the Coastal Zone Management Commission. Ms. Gallent said the matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board which did not have any comment. Mr. Gunther said the matter is an unlisted action, with no significant impact and directed counsel to draft a negative declaration. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant is aware there are only four member present to vote on the matter, and three out of the four members are needed for a motion to carry. Mr. Camow said he is aware of the situation and wants to continue. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED, 4-0, Ms. Martin was not present. WHEREAS, this application is an unlisted action pursuant to SEQRA and the Board adopted a Negative Declaration because the EAF reveals that the action as proposed will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact; and On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED, 3-1; Mr. Wexler was opposed, Ms. Martin left the meeting: WHEREAS, Neil Carnow for Pier I Imports has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to erect two signs. The sign on the west elevation would have a height of 3 ft. 9 in. where a maximum height of 32 in. is allowed pursuant to Section 175-11B and said sign would project above the front parapet which is prohibited from projecting above the top of the building surface upon which it is placed pursuant to Section 175-11B. The sign on the north elevation would have a height of 3 ft. 1 in. where a maximum of 32 in. is allowed pursuant to Section 175-11B. Said sign would be on a side wall of a building which is not permitted also pursuant to Section 175-11B; and further, the total square footage of the two signs would be 139.15 sq. ft. where the maximum of square footage of 100 sq. ft. is allowed for all signs pursuant to Section 175-11B all for a business building in the Urban Renewal 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; 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 175-11B; and WHEREAS, Neil Carnow for Pier I Imports submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and • Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 17 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 will not negatively change the character of the neighborhood. The lighting of the sign will not spill out to illuminate the area generally. The applicant explained and represented to the Board that the nature of the lighting is a contained illumination to display the letters of the sign. It is not the type of illumination that will illuminate outside the footprint of the signs. Moreover,. the applicant has agreed to extinguish the sign lighting by 9:00 p.m. or the close of business, whichever is later. Accordingly, any impact on the area will be minimized; B. The requested variance is the only reasonable alternative to display the company name, PIER I, to traffic traveling from Mamaroneck towards New Rochelle, so cars can see the business logo prior to passing the building itself. Putting the sign in an alternative location would create safety problems, as cars would be past the parking lot entrance by the time they identified the building. This would encourage risky traffic maneuvering; C. The variance is not substantial; D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district; E. 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; F. 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; G. 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 agrees to extinguish the illumination of the side wall sign on the north facade at the conclusion of the business day or 9:00 p.m., whichever occurs first. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two (2)years of the date of said permit. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 18 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for a permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2288 Application of Robert and Pam Joyce requesting a variance to widen an existing driveway and convert terrace to parking space. The driveway as proposed to be widened would be 1.0 ft. from the property line where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-79B for a residence use in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 68 N. Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117 Lot 236. Mr. Wexler recused himself due to his professional relationship with Mr. Joyce. Chris Powell, the architect, of 231 West 16th Street, New York, New York 10011 appeared representing the applicant. Mr. Powell said the project was the addition of a kitchen, expanding the house, which did not require a variance. After submitting the plans to the Building Department, Mr. Jakubowski informed Mr. Powell a variance was needed to widen a driveway which part of the scope of the work performed. Reconveying, there is a carport on the back side of the house, the owner comes down the side yard and a right turn is made into the carport. Mr. Powell needs a turning radius large enough to do so. The project was done in two parts, and is under construction. Mr. Powell submitted and explained pictures to the Board, marked exhibit#1. There will be no trees taken down, other than the brushy vegetation which will be removed, nothing of any impact. Mr. Gunther asked the size of the turnaround, and asked Mr. Powell to point same out on the plan. Mr. Powell said the owners will be backing out of the driveway. Mr. Powell explained the presence of a tree and said in the past day or so the paved area behind the house was removed. Mr. Powell will be installing a 25 ft. length, approximately 5 ft. wide space needed for the turn into the carport. A discussion ensued regarding the entrance into the garage and the current use of the garage, that being storage. Mr. Powell said the terrace will be made into the carport. Mr. Powell reviewed the soil erosion control plan with the Board and explained the ingress and egress to the carport. A discussion ensued regarding the space needed for the carport and provisions made to provide same. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Jakubowski if there are standards regarding same. Mr. Jakubowski said the standards show a 10 ft. inside radius, with a discussion ensuing regarding maneuvering the vehicle to make a turn. Mr. Gunther asked the distance from the side lot line to the next adjacent house. Mr. Jakubowski referred to the tax map and said approximately 22 ft. Mr. Joyce presented a picture to the Board, marked exhibit#2, and explained same to the Board. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 19 Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. There being none, he asked if there were any other questions from the public. John Peisinger of 207 Loss District Drive, New Canaan, Connecticut, the owner of the adjacent property directly effected appeared. Mr. Peisinger said he did not receive proper notice. A notice was sent to the house. Ms. Gallent said the law requires the publication in the newspaper, and the Town sends notice, as a courtesy, to the property owners within a 400 ft. radius which is taken from the assessor's office records. Mr. Peisinger discussed his concern regarding the buffer zone of 12 in. rather than 5 ft. required, stating it is out of scale for the property. Given the proximity of the property, granting a variance will not be within the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Powell said there is no other solution and explained why. Mr. Kelleher said in the area of the Town where he resides it is quite common to have a common driveway where there is no buffer between the driveways of adjacent houses. Mr. Joyce said there are driveways adjoining on the block. The driveway abuts to the driveway next to the Carlucci house. Mr. Kelleher said his comments were made about the community of the Town of Mamaroneck. Mr. Simon asked how far the driveway is from the property line. Mr. Peisinger said the driveway goes under the house and is approximately 15 ft., only in the front. Mr. Simon said he does not see a problem. Mr. Peisinger said it has a great deal to do with aesthetics and the consistency with the area surrounding it. Mr. Simon asked if Mr. Powell considered making a semicircle to turn the car around. Mr. Powell said that was not considered, because the entrance to the carport is from the end of the house. Mr. Jakubowski said it appears it is quite possible that repaving the area would increase the lot coverage beyond the 35% allowed and another variance would be needed. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Powell if he has considered some form of vegetation in the 1 ft. area. Mr. Powell said there is vegetation in that area. A discussion ensued regarding whether the vegetation is a twelve month species. Mr. Powell said twelve month vegetation can be planted. Mr. Gunther said that tends to provide a reduction in the visual appearance of an expanded driveway coming closer to the lot line. Mr. Powell said that will be no problem. Mr. Gunther also suggested if vegetation is planted in two areas, one immediately adjacent to the Peisinger property and also in the area to the front of the property line that presents a screen to shield same. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 20 Mr. Jakubowski said it is a one foot high space. A discussion ensued regarding what type of planting should be used, with Mr. Powell stating he will consult with a landscaper. Mr. Kelleher said a Spilar can be used. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions. Mr. Peisinger questioned the area needed for the turn as opposed to previously there was the ability to almost make a U-turn into the garage, and if 1 ft. is the required minimum. Mr. Jakubowski said standard wise the location of the garage where it existed so close to the side wall of the house, the entrance, the turn was probably maneuvered similar to a broken U-turn. Mr. Gunther reminded the applicant there are only three members available to vote, and a majority vote will be needed. The applicant said he will proceed. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. There being none, he asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED, 3-0; Mr. Wexler recused himself, Ms. Martin was not present. 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 Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Robert and Pam Joyce have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to widen an existing driveway and convert terrace to parking space. The driveway as proposed to be widened would be 1.0 ft. from the property line where 5.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-79B for a residence use in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 68 N. Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 117 Lot 236; 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 240-79B; and WHEREAS, Robert and Pam Joyce 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 fords 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: Zoning Board • September 24, 1997 Page 21 A. There will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, nor will there be a detriment to nearby properties created because the applicant has agreed to add screening for the neighbors. Moreover, similar conditions currently exist in the neighborhood. There are several houses on the block with abutting or common driveways; B. There is no reasonable alternative method to achieve the goal, as the applicant has a limited side yard and needs the space to be able to make a turn into the new carport. Moreover, there will be additional green space provided and the pre-existing lot coverage will be reduced; C. The variance is insubstantial in nature. In terms of the overall size of the. property, it is minimal; D. The variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; E. 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; F. 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; G. 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 1T RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The plans presented indicate an oval shaped addition to the driveway. That oval shape shall have evergreen screening surrounding it on the north side, so that when looking from the street one cannot see where the addition has gone beyond the existing driveway line and looking from the neighbor it is blocked. The minimum height of the evergreens will be 4 ft. from the ball and must be maintained, approximately 35 lineal ft. of screening. The neighboring property owner, Mr. Peisinger, has agreed that the plant balls may encroach on his property to a reasonable degree to permit this screening to be installed and thrive. 2. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. 3. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six(6)months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit. 4. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. .+ 4. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 22 The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2289 Application of Daniel Greenbaum requesting a variance to legalize an enclosed porch. The screened porch, converted to the existing enclosed porch, was built with a rear yard of 31.0 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 24-34B(3); the side yard is 0.32 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 34B(2)(a), and the total side yard width is 23.32 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 34B(2)(b); and further, the enclosure increases the extent by which the structure is non-conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 4 Boulder Brae Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 313 Lot 250. The structure was granted a variance as a screened porch on May 24, 1945. Michael Csenge, the architect, appeared for the applicant. Mr. Greenbaum said the project that exists was built in the'40's,while the expansion on the porch was done in the'40's with the variance from the Town. The present owner took the screened panels on the porch out in the 60's, installed glass panels and heated it. Mr. Wexler said the certification states the extension is to within 6 ft. of the property line. Mr. Jakubowski said it is the language used at the time; 6 ft. was the required side yard. Mr. Csenge said the survey shows it as being .32 ft. or 4 in. as noted on the survey of 1945. A building permit was secured to extend the original porch and a variance was granted at that time. Mr. Csenge would like to legalize the porch from a screened porch to an enclosed porch. Mr. Kelleher said if it was made an enclosed porch some time in the '60's, thirty years ago, why is it becoming an issue now. Mr. Csenge said the house is changing owners. Mr. Jakubowski said the applicant will need a Letter of Compliance for the house, a Certificate of Occupancy for the alterations which were done prior to the 60's. Mr. Csenge said the only adjacent neighbor on that side is Winged Foot, and a letter was submitted from them stating no objection to the application. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the Board members. There being none, he asked if there were any questions from the public. Joyce Phelps appeared and said she was interested in the application and in the house. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED, 4-0, Ms. Martin was not present. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Daniel Greenbaum has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to legalize an enclosed porch. The screened porch, converted to the existing enclosed porch, was built with a rear yard of 31.0 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 24-34B(3); the side yard is 0.32 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(2)(a), and the total side yard width • Zoning Board • September 24, 1997 Page 23 is 23.32 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(2)(b); and further, the enclosure increases the extent by which the structure is non-conforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 4 Boulder Brae Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 313 Lot 250. The structure was granted a variance as a screened porch on May 24, 1945; 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 24-34B(3), Section 240-34B(2)(a), Section 240-34B(2)(b), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Daniel Greenbaum 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. Since the porch has been in existence for approximately fifty (50) years, it has been proven it does not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. There will be no undesirable change to the neighbors, since it is the neighborhood and has been there for fifty (50) years; B. The applicant does not have the benefit of any other means than to remove the enclosure; C. The difficulty was not self-created; D. 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; E. 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; 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 subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution. Zoning Board September 24, 1997 Page 24 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES After some discussion, a motion was made by Mr. Gunther to approve the Minutes of September 4, 1997, which was seconded by Mr. Simon and approved, 4-0. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on October 29, 1997. ADJOURNMENT On a motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Simon, the meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Margiiefite Roma, RecordingSecretary rY