Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_09_04 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK SEPTEMBER 4, 1997, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman 4 13 Patrick A. Martin D Jillian Martin J. Rene Simon RECEIVE Arthur Wexler Mu( Z 1�91 YY��� Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector M K V/ Kevin T. Moore, Assistant Building Inspector Qr '6 cad Susan Sturino, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kazazes &Associates, Ltd. 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:46 p.m. Mr. Gunther informed the Board that administrative matters will be conducted at the end of the agenda; i.e. Minutes. Mr. Gunther read a faxed message received from Kevin Doyle, application#2/case#2277, asking for an adjournment to the October Zoning Board meeting. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2276/2290 (adjourned 7/29/97/resubmitted) 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 sidewalk 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(Mr. N. DeGiacomo), the contractor and applicant for Ray Catena/Lexus, appeared stating a revised application was submitted in this matter. The first application was for 199.75 sq. ft. which was reduced to 140.4 sq. ft. which was accomplished by changing the spacing between the lettering which was verified on a field check, rather than using the figures taken from the blueprints and used on the first application. Mr. N. DeGiacomo expanded on the details used to arrive at the new square footage calculation used on the revised application. Mr. N. DeGiacomo said the applicant wants to add Ray Catena to the Lexus side wall sign to identify the dealership location, not to advertise or promote. Mr. N. DeGiacomo said it is a subdued, internally lit sign oh the side of the facade which faces the Mayer Volvo Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 2 dealership and the Larchmont town yard. Mr. N. DeGiacomo took photos during the day and night which were submitted with the application to show the effects of the sign during those times, which the Board perused. Mr. N. DeGiacomo stated that the photos show the sign is not a bright white light, but a soft goldish light which will not shine through the parking lot for any distance at all. There is shrubbery on the borders of the property in the form of evergreens, leaved trees, fencing and buildings. Mr. N. DeGiacomo also took photos on Birch Lane toward Ray Catena Lexus and asserted that nothing can be seen through the shrubbery. The only lighting picked up in the photos was from street lights, the city yard and the Volvo dealership. During the day the sign is a bronze tone and at night it is a goldish. Mr. N. DeGiacomo explained how that is accomplished. Mr. N. DeGiacomo then made reference to comments made from the public at the last Zoning Board meeting stating that Mr. Cooney was concerned about the lighting visible during the wintertime which is probably so without the leaves on the trees, but there are evergreens and other trees creating some type of screen. The lights of the sign are on a time clock programmed in the wintertime to light at 5:00 p.m. and shut off at 10:00 p.m., which Mr. N. DeGiacomo checked and verified. The summer time clock hours are from 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. With respect to exhibit #1 submitted by Ms. Davidson, Mr. N. DeGiacomo stated that the flood lights noted in the exhibit are irrelevant to the current application which is for a sign. Ms. Davidson's second note was about the signage being in full view in the winter months, which Mr. N. DeGiacomo does not understand with the evergreens and the other trees that screen out the lighting. There was also a comment made about the Hommocks Carnival which also is not relevant to the current application. On page two of Ms. Davidson's exhibit there were some notes about flood lights and collection of recyclables which are also not relevant. Exhibit#1 was a photocopy with no date to determine when the comments were made. Exhibit#2 were different sized photos, obviously all the same shot, again with no date to determine when taken. Mr. N. DeGiacomo said Mrs. Slater commented that she had been at many meetings concerning Ray Catena Lexus applying for other variances. The current application is the only variance for which Ray Catena has applied; i.e. a sign variance. Mr. N. DeGiacomo said that prior to Ray Catena's tenancy there were four different dealerships on the property, Tri-Star, Country and Flynn Ford, none making the major site improvements nor maintaining the property as Ray Catena has. The shrubbery is manicured and there is no debris visible in any of the photos presented to the Board. Mr. N. DeGiacomo said the Board should also remember the dealership is on the Post Road, probably one of the oldest, if not the oldest, commercial highways in the United States and will probably remain so. No variance was needed to become a dealership, and the only variance being sought is to identify the dealership as a Ray Catena Lexus dealership. Mr. N. DeGiacomo said if there were any questions about lighting, they can be directed to the lighting expert attending this evening's meeting, Michael DeGiacomo (Mr. M. DeGiacomo). Mr. N. DeGiacomo also indicated that a representative from Ray Catena Lexus was also present. Michael DeGiacomo, also a contractor, then addressed the Board regarding the lighting. Mr. M. DeGiacomo said Lexus has a logo the dealership requires; i.e. the design of the letter style and illumination of the letter style. Mr. M. DeGiacomo said the sign has a subdued look during the day, it is mounted on an ivory background and has a dark piece of glass over it making appear dark during the day. At night is has to be illuminated. The Town requirements are 20 foot candles measured at 25 ft. at a right angle to the sign. Mr. M. DeGiacomo proceeded to explain the foot candle measurement onto a surface, and demonstrated same to the Board. Mr. M. DeGiacomo said there is no illumination to measure as it measures less than 2 foot candles from 10 ft. away. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the location and distance from which the photos being discussed were taken regarding the light measurement and the impact on the community. Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 3 Robert Morea, the business manager for Ray Catena, appeared. Mr. Morea said due to ill health Mr. Catena could not be present. Mr. Morea has been business manager for Ray Catena for five years and has been in the automobile industry for over twenty years. Mr. Morea said only the name Lexus was on the side of the building when business started. Individuals identified the building as Lexus of Larchmont instead of Ray Catena Lexus. After building a reputation in the community, Mr. Catena, who owns several Lexus and Mercedes dealerships in the tri-state area, wants the dealership recognized as Ray Catena Lexus. Mr. Catena spent over $30,000.00 for evergreens at the Larchmont border. With the lighting set to turn off at 10:00 p.m. it has jeopardized the security at Lexus, causing Mr. Catena to employ off-duty Mamaroneck police officers to patrol the area after that time to be considerate to the community. Mr. Morea said Mr. Catena has always supported the Town of Mamaroneck and Larchmont and have never been to another government agency or a variance board for any reason other than this application to identify Ray Catena Lexus. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members. Mr. Wexler asked for clarification on how Mr. N. DeGiacomo arrived at the lesser 50 sq. ft. figure for the signs. Mr. N. DeGiacomo reiterated the details as stated at the beginning of the presentation, at which time a detailed discussion ensued along with input from the building inspector. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. Eleanor Brachbell who resides at the Larchmont Gables, 1452 Boston Post Road, directly across the road from Lexus appeared. Ms. Brachbell stated she is the president of the Board for the Larchmont Gables, a forty-nine (49) family residence in the Town of Mamaroneck. Ms. Brachbell stated having been a resident at Larchmont Gables since before the Lexus opening she is aware of the before and after lighting changes. The light coming into the windows after dark is offensive, keeps her daughter awake at night and the lights do not go off at 10:00 p.m. It varies. Ms. Brachbell stated that a change in signage for identification purposes only does not have to be larger. Mr. Brachbell said she disagrees with Mr. N. DeGiacomo's statement that a neighbor's comments about flood lighting is irrelevant, because the entire business includes signage as well as cars, trucks unloading at ungodly hours in the morning and lighting. Individuals in the community don't want the street to look commercial, like Central Avenue in Yonkers. In perusing the Town of Mamaroneck and the surrounding neighborhoods, signs are small in nature and Ms. Brachbell feels maintaining that regulation is important. In conclusion Ms. Brachbell said with respect to increasing signage and foot candles and the presence of commercial property, it lowers the value of the surrounding residential properties, in particular the Co-op, Larchmont Gables. Mr. Gunther asked Ms. Brachbell in reference to the light in the windows if she was referring to the light coming from the parking lot or the lighting coming from the name sign on the building, as there is quite a difference between the two. Ms. Brachbell said she is referring to both, at which time a discussion ensued regarding same. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Morea if there was a lighted sign in the front of the building. Mr. Morea said the lighted sign is on the south side of the building. A discussion ensued regarding the lighted signage on the building, with Mr. M. DeGiacomo saying there are two trees planted in the area of the illuminated sign that totally block out the sign during this time of year until the leaves fall. Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 4 Mr. Wexler stated lighted signage is not normally seen in a residential area and made reference to the photos submitted to the Board. Mr. Wexler said the code states no signs on the parking lot side, the reason being that most, if not all, of the commercial properties in the community back up to residential properties. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the increase in the length of the sign on the side wall for recognition, the placement of the sign and whether Ray Catena Lexus would accept the signage not being back lit. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Jakubowski if Lexus had to appear before the Zoning Board to put the name Lexus on the side of the building. Mr. Jakubowski said because the signage predates the law change in 1994, Lexus did not have to get a variance for the sign initially. Ms. Martin asked what the business hours are of the dealership. Mr. Morea said the hours of business are from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday. Mr. Morea said the problem seems to be from the south in the wintertime, with not enough foliage on the trees. A discussion ensued regarding why the sign must be illuminated when the dealership is closed if the sign is being used for identification purposes and the fact that all are on the same timer. Mr. Kelleher commented on refocusing on exactly what is being requested as there are two issues before the Board, one to maintain a sign and one to install a new sign. Ms. Gallent said this a revised application. Last month only an addition to the sign was noticed, not a variance to maintain an existing wall sign. The Board cannot vote this evening on this application, as the new application has to be referred to the Coastal Zone Management Commission and to the Westchester County Planning Board. A discussion ensued regarding the contents of the sign and the addition to the sign. Eleanor Davidson of 2 Locust Avenue, Larchmont appeared before the Board. Ms. Davidson said the entrance to the parking lot of Lexus is on the Boston Post Road. At the last meeting, Ms. Davidson pointed out that the sign on the side wall is clearly seen for seven or eight months of the year perhaps more. It is a clearly, brightly lit sign. There are also high intensity halogen lights in the parking lot which contribute to the illumination. The previous car dealership did not have cars in the rear 100 ft. of the lot. Ray Catena extended the use of cars into the rear 100 ft. and asked for increased numbers of spaces in the lot itself. Secondly, the entrance is from Boston Post Road. If it is only to identify and not to advertise, Ms. Davidson asked why the front cannot be cleared of the trees that are blocking visibility and the name Ray Catena placed in front where it will clearly identify that dealership. Ms. Davidson then discussed the landscaping and the fact that none of the $30,000.00 spent on evergreens benefits the individuals by the rear border. Ms. Davidson presented and commented on a photo, marked exhibit#1, which was taken in December of 1996 to verify her comments. Ms. Davidson said a letter was written to Ray Catena asking for screening. The Board of Architectural Review also asked for additional screening. Ms. Davidson said Ms. Garvey, who lives in the house on Birch Lane closest to the Lexus dealership said the curtains must be drawn to feel her space is not an extension of the car lot. There are dealerships in New Rochelle that do not use any lights. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 5 Jane Slater of 7 Birch Lane appeared. Ms. Slater said she was present at the BAR meeting last week and the BAR said they were going to send notice to the Zoning Board regarding the review of this matter. Mr. Gunther said a letter was received from the BAR. Ms. Slater said it is a continuing problem. The moment the leaves are down the sign is visible. The increase in size will have an impact on the houses in the community. For clarification, the Village of Larchmont is also in the Town. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. James Kerr of 1448 Boston Post Road appeared. Mr. Kerr stated other than the lighting, Lexus also. creates noise problems for residents. The current lighting is effective enough. If for identification purposes, clearly the Lexus dealership is well identified as it is. It is a great inconvenience for those that live in the area. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. Mr. M. DeGiacomo said from comments made by the public, most of the problem is from the parking lot lights themselves. Mr. M. DeGiacomo said he has been to the lot, the Town requires the minimum lighting for the parking lot and stated the requirement. If the parking lot lights were shut, there would be no problem with the signage lighting whatsoever. A discussion ensued regarding whether the area being discussed was a parking lot area or storage area and the Town requirement for each. Mr.Jakubowski said the parking lot lighting was designed by a lighting engineer, reviewed by the Planning Board as part of the site plan including the light pattern, type of fixture to be used, the dispersal of the light, etc. The lights that are currently there were approved under the Planning Board's Site Plan. A detailed discussion ensued between Mr. M. DeGiacomo and Mr. Wexler regarding the impact of the lighting on the residential community and whether the lighting represents the minimum required by Town law. Ms. Davidson said the wattage on each bulb is a 1,000 watt halogen. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Mr. Kelleher asked for clarification on the statement made by counsel. Ms. Gallent said that the applicant has revised the application to request an additional variance. The revised application must be sent to the CZMC for comment. The Board cannot vote on this matter this evening, the CZMC will meet and discuss the matter and the BAR will also give a recommendation that has not yet been received. Mr. Kelleher said that due to the fact that there will be a period of time before this matter can be voted on Mr. M. DeGiacomo should consider an adjustment to the lighting in the parking lot, as the additional illumination caused by the proposed sign will not be detrimental. Mr. Gunther pointed out that this matter is an unlisted action under SEQRA and has to be referred to the CZMC and the BAR. The BAR has had one meeting and concluded they could not make a recommendation at this time. The BAR will review more material and do additional work on the application. Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 6 Ms. Gallent said the BAR will meet before the next Zoning Board meeting and will provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board. Ms. Davidson said that Mr. Kelleher felt the enlargement of the sign was a drop in the bucket. Mr. Kelleher said he was referring to the illumination, not the enlargement of the sign. Ms. Brachbell said diminishing the parking lot lights would make the sign appear to be brighter. Ms. Brachbell finds the sign to be very intrusive. Mr. Gunther said prior to adjourning the application, he would like comments from the Board members that might help the applicant understand the Board's concerns that might be beneficial in finding relief from the situation. Ms. Martin asked if there was a way to incorporate Ray Catena's name during normal business hours and not after hours. Mr. Wexler said the Lexus building is a nicely designed building, but putting a 39 ft. sign on the building is a distraction architecturally and he would not be inclined to approve the application. The Board is trying to tone down the commercial area. Mr. Wexler feels it will be a detriment to the community. Mr. Gunther feels similar to Mr. Wexler, in that the size of the sign is more than the Town of Mamaroneck can handle. However, Mr. Gunther does not object to Mr. N. DeGiacomo finding a way to promote the name that represents the good will and the name that the dealership has built up over the years. However, bear in mind the applicant chose Larchmont, the Town of Mamaroneck to build the dealership for many reasons, one of which is because of the population of the community. The individuals sitting behind Mr. N. DeGiacomo are individuals who have spent their life savings for the same reasons, because they like the way it looks and feels. Mr. Gunther suggested melding the two together to promote the name,-Ray Catena, in a less obtrusive way that doesn't glare out at the individuals that reside in the community,but at the same time provides the recognition. The applicant might want to think about Lexus on one side and Ray Catena on the other side or a combination of such that reduces the amount of impact. Mr. Kelleher said in making a determination whether to grant an application for a variance or whether to deny that application the Board is bound to take into account five factors and suggested the applicant address those five factors, which are set forth in the New York State Town Law. Ms. Gallent said a copy of the law can be obtained from the Building Department. Mr. Simon agrees with the chairman and Mr. Wexler. A sign that long will be overpowering and asked Mr. Jakubowski if the name Ray Catena can be put elsewhere. Mr. Jakubowski said there are other avenues that can be explored. Mr. Simon said the building is nice looking and suggested finding another way to implement the name, Ray Catena. Mr. Simon will not accept the sign as presented this evening. Mr. Gunther said before the case is adjourned, the date set for the next meeting will be September 24, 1997. On a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Kelleher, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case #2276/2290 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the September 24, 1997 Zoning Board meeting. Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 7 The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2278 (adjourned 7/29/97) Application of Mr. & Mrs. Melvin J. Berning requesting a variance to construct a two story addition/alteration. The two story addition/alteration as proposed would have a side yard of 10.0 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(2)(a); a front yard setback of 28.0 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(1); and further, the addition/alteration increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 1 Boulder Brae Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 313 Lot 272. Paul Noto, Esq., of 1600 Harrison Avenue, Mamaroneck, representing Mr. & Mrs. Berning who are also present appeared and said this is a continuation of a hearing held in July. Subsequent to that meeting, the applicant has had meetings with the neighbors who had expressed concerns about the proposed application. The Board received a letter from Judith Cohen and Steve Rosen supporting the revised plan which eliminated the chimney reducing the amount requested from 7 ft. to 4 ft. making it a less imposing project and is a part of the record. Mr. Noto submitted exhibit #1 for the record, a revised letter from the appraiser correcting a mistake previously made regarding the address, #1 Boulder Brae Lane, and the landscaping plan, exhibit #2, which is referenced in Ms. Cohen's letter. The revised plan incorporates suggestions made by Board members and the neighbors at the last meeting. Mr. Gunther said the Board would like to see what the changes included. Mr. Minieri, the architect for the project, said the focus of the objection, the chimney, was removed and the space was filled in with additional windows and the area sided. Mr. Gunther asked how much space that created in terms of the side lot line. Mr. Minieri said the applicant regained 3 ft. Mr. Gunther stated the applicant is now at 12.7 ft. rather than 10.0 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required, which Mr. Minieri verified. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other structural changes, and asked about the front yard setback. Mr. Minieri said there were no other structural changes, and the front yard setback remains at the existing 28.0 ft. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Kelleher stated that he thought the original design presented was a super design and an excellent improvement, but what must be done must be done. Mr. Gunther asked the building inspector if he had received a copy of the landscaping plan. Mr. Jakubowski said a copy of the landscaping plan was in the packet. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. Judith Cohen appeared and stated she just wanted to confirm the Board received the letter sent, which was confirmed. Mr. Gunther asked Ms. Cohen if she has had a chance to review the plans, as stated in her letter. Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 8 Ms. Cohen said it is her understanding that copies of the plans were given to her architect who agreed with the revisions. There being no other questions or comments from the public, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. Melvin J. Berning have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a two story addition/alteration.The two story addition/alteration as proposed would have a side yard of 10.0 ft. where 20.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240- 34B(2)(a); a front yard setback of 28.0 ft. where 50.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-34B(1); and further, the addition/alteration increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 1 Boulder Brae Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 313 Lot 272; 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 240-34B(2)(a), Section 240-34B(1), Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs. Melvin J. Berning submitted an application for a variance to this Board for the reasons set forth in such application; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof and a hearing thereon; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of the Town of Mamaroneck makes the following findings as required by New York State Town Law §267-b: 1. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood if the variance sought is granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. The change does not produce any undesirable effect on or detriment to the nearby properties; the neighbors at 2 Boulder Brae have indicated that they do not object to the proposed design; B. It is a reasonable design to achieving the goal of the applicant; C. The variance is not an overwhelmingly substantial variance request; D. It does not appear to have any adverse impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood; E. A landscaping plan has been submitted to diminish the impact of the side lot line variance with, among other things, the rhododendron to be 5 ft. planted height; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 9 G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will implement and maintain the landscaping plan submitted on Larchmont Nursery Greenhouses' letterhead, dated August 5, 1997; 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. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the building department during regular business hours for a building permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 2282 Application of Robert Gurrerio requesting a variance to maintain an awning sign. The awning letters 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, 2001 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont and Walter Nestler, the architect for the project, of 271 North Avenue, New Rochelle, appeared. Ms. Battalia said she represents Mr. Gurrerio who, in the spring of this year, purchased the High Tech Car Wash which required obtaining a Special Permit through the Planning Board and the Board of Architectural Review(BAR). In the course of the application, it was discovered that in March of this year the awning,which had been previously approved for the prior applicant,was damaged and replaced. When it was replaced the same size lettering was installed straight across rather than at an angle, which requires a variance. The Special Permit was granted by the Planning Board conditioned upon the Zoning Board granting a variance to maintain the signage as it currently exists. A discussion ensued regarding the size of the letters; i.e. 2 ft. in height. Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 10 Mr. Wexler asked if new awnings were installed on the side. Mr. Nestler said the side and rear awnings are existing awnings. The Board perused pictures on file regarding the awnings/signage. Ms. Battalia said a previous variance was granted to the prior owner to have lettering that height. When the new sign was installed, the style and location of the letters was changed. Mr. Gunther asked why changes were made. Ms. Battalia said she is unaware of the reasons changes were made. Mr. Gunther asked if only the sign in the front changed, which Ms. Battalia verified. A discussion ensued regarding the existence of the canopy sign. Ms. Battalia said because the change of ownership requires a new Special Permit, in the process course it was noted by the building inspector that the signage had been changed; i.e. the lettering on the canopy a different style. Ms. Gallent said this matter is an unlisted action under SEQRA and must be referred to the CZMC and the Westchester County Planning Board for comments. A discussion ensued regarding the lettering on the canopy and how the lettering is applied. Mr. Nestler presented pictures to the Board, marked exhibit#1, for their perusal and commented on same. Mr. Nestler said the lettering is 32 in. high on the front of the building, the canopy. Mr. Kelleher asked for clarification regarding this application. Mr. Wexler said the applicant needed a lighted area to do good quality work, heating elements for wintertime use and signage. Mr. Kelleher said in granting the variance the previously existing signage was granted. Now it is different; i.e. 2 ft. for the letters and 1 ft. for the numerals. Mr. Kelleher asked what the Town standard states. Mr. Jakubowski said the standard is 6 in., but a variance was previously granted. A detailed discussion ensued regarding same. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. Mr. Wexler asked if the applicant will reflect the actual signage at the next meeting, which Mr. Nestler agreed to do. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions or comments from the public. There being none, on a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Simon, it was unanimously RESOLVED, that the Public Hearing of case#2282 be, and hereby is, adjourned to the September 24, 1997 Zoning Board meeting. The Secretary read the next application as follows: Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 11 APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 2283 Application of Stein&Battalia requesting a transfer of property by apportionment from 11 Birchfield Road to 9 Birchfield Road will reduce the average width of 11 Birchfield Road from 65.35 ft. to 60.7 ft. where 75.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38A(2) in violation of Section 240-13 as it reduces the already nonconforming lot width required for a lot in a residence 7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Birchfield Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115 Lot 224. Mr. Wexler stated he knows the individual benefiting from the variance request and given the type of case, does not feel it will influence his decision. Dolores Battalia, of Stein & Battalia, 2001 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont appeared. Ms. Battalia said the lot that is the subject of the application is a substantially over-sized lot. The lot is conformed in a certain way. The portion proposed to be transferred would appear to be a part of the land of the neighbor. Over the course of ownership, the neighbor has always maintained that portion of the property. The area is beautifully landscaped, nicely maintained and will continued to be maintained in such a fashion. The tax map shows the parcels and angles of the property. There will be no adverse impact on any of the neighbors. The land will remain the same. Their is no construction involved, just an exchange of ownership for the particular sliver of land. The parcel will still remain substantially oversized. Mr. Kelleher asked what is the objective. Ms. Battalia said a sliver of land is being taken and deeded to the neighbor, because the land appears to be physically more a part of the neighbor's property which the neighbor has always maintained. The owners to not want to be responsible for that portion of the property, they don't want the land, don't use the land and would like to formalize the transfer by deeding same to the next door neighbor. Ms. Gallent said a variance is needed to do so. A discussion ensued regarding actions that can be taken if the property is sold at a future time, if the portion of the property is not deeded to the neighbor. Mr. Kelleher thanked Ms. Battalia for explaining the variance requested. Ms. Gallent said the matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board, which did not have any comment. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions or comments from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Ms. Martin, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Stein & Battalia have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a transfer of property by apportionment from 11 Birchfield Road to 9 Birchfield Road will reduce the average width of 11 Birchfield Road from 65.35 ft. to 60.7 ft. where 75.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38A(2) in violation of Section 240-13 as it reduces the already nonconforming lot width required for a lot in a residence 7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 11 Birchfield Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 115 Lot 224; and Zoning Board September 4, 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 240-38A(2), Section 240-13; and WHEREAS, Stein& Battalia 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 both applicants 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 is no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. Rather, the variance will permit the maintenance of a very desirable situation in landscaping that has been maintained by the owner at 9 Birchfield over a number of years; B. There is no reasonable alternative given the topography of the property, which is a difficult piece of property for the owner of 11 Birchfield to maintain; C. The variance is not substantial given the fact that the property itself is quite large. Although the back footage of the property will be narrowed, there is no change in the use of the property; D. It does not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood. In fact it is a benefit to the neighborhood to allow the owner at 9 Birchfield to continue to maintain the property in an attractive way; E. It is not a self-created difficulty; F. The granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; G. The variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the difficulty detailed in the application yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community; H. The strict application of the Zoning Ordinance and the Town Code would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land/or building, and the variance granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 13 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 2284 Application of Thomas Moore/Stephanie Saia requesting a variance to construct a 2-story addition and maintain required off-street parking on an existing driveway. The addition as proposed would have a front setback of 24.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1), and the addition would increase the extent by which the building is non-conforming pursuant to Section 240-69; further, the access to the garage on site has been removed, where required pursuant to Section 240-4 - Definitions, requiring parking of motor vehicles in the driveway. A reduction in legally available parking is prohibited pursuant to Section 240-81, and parking spaces 0.6 ft. off the side line is prohibited pursuant to Section 240-79B, which requires such spaces be a minimum of 5.0 ft. from the property line all for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 16 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118 Lot 350. Ms. Martin said she has a personal relationship with Thomas Moore and Stephanie Saia and recused herself. Chris Powell, the architect, of 321 West 16th Street, New York, New York, appeared. Mr. Powell said the applicant has a 21/2 story house that is not liveable for the current family of five residing in the house. The second floor only has one bathroom, a tiny powder room on the first floor and a narrow family room. The owner had submitted photographs, marked exhibits#1, #2 and #3, which the Board perused and on which Mr. Powell commented. Mr. Powell also has a site plan drawn on the drawing. Mr. Powell said the applicant is proposing a 1' story addition on the side of the house, to have a usable family room above which will be a master bathroom, walk-in closet and deck area and study off the master bedroom. A variance is required because the front of the house currently has a boxy looking vestibule and an awkward set of steps going up to the vestibule with no landing at the top of the steps. Mr. Powell is proposing to bring the roof of the new extension down in front of the house out to the line where the existing vestibule is, going across underneath that with a covered porch. It will tie the new extension into what is existing, as it lacks some of the character of the houses currently around it. The current setback is non-conforming. Mr. Powell is not asking for any more than what is actually non-conforming,just increasing the area it goes over. Mr. Wexler asked how the garage is accessed. Mr. Powell said the owner had a flooding problem in the rear yard, which is very small, and for those two reasons and the fact that the garage is not needed other than for storage, a portion of the driveway in the rear yard was removed. The garage currently cannot be accessed. It can be accessed by riding across the grass. The lot tapers off and a paved turnaround would be needed for use. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Powell had photographs of the garage. Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 14 Mr. Powell referred to and commented on the exhibits marked #3 and #2, in the order presented. Mr. Powell said when grass was planted, the flooding problem was eliminated. In conjunction with the front porch variance, Mr. Powell asks that existing driveway condition be maintained. Mr. Kelleher asked where the cars currently owned by the applicants are parked. Mr. Moore said the cars are parked on the side of the house and in the driveway. A discussion ensued regarding off-street parking and the use of pavement or gravel being used for the driveway area. Mr. Gunther asked to review the tax map, at which time a discussion ensued regarding the house next to the applicants' house. Mr. Powell submitted a letter, marked as exhibit #4, from the surrounding neighbors in support of the proposed changes to improve the appearance and use. Mr. Gunther said on the site survey presented it shows 26 ft. to the steps and asked what the 24 ft. figure represents. Mr. Powell said the 24 ft. represents the outside corner of the porch which ties everything in. Mr. Gunther said the Notice of Disapproval states the garage has been removed, and asked when that was removed. Mr. Gunther also asked when the house was purchased. Mr. Moore said the house was purchased in 1990 and the driveway was paved asphalt within a year of purchase, but had been gravel before. Mr. Jakubowski said the paving shown on the plan is the way it was paved before Mr. Moore moved in. The gravel had already been removed and the garage was not used for parking. Mr. Moore said the driveway was used for parking when the house was purchased and the backyard was paved half way. Mr. Moore did not know permission was needed to do that. Mr. Gunther asked if the proposed driveway is wide enough. Mr. Powell said the driveway is wide enough. Ms. Gallent said the matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board, which did not have any comment. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the Board members. There being none, Mr. Gunther asked if there were any questions from the public. There being none, on motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Thomas Moore/Stephanie Saia have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a 2-story addition and maintain required off-street parking on an existing driveway. The addition as proposed would have a front setback of 24.0 ft. where 30.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-38B(1), and the addition would increase the extent by which the building Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 15 is non-conforming pursuant to Section 240-69; further, the access to the garage on site has been removed, where required pursuant to Section 240-4 - Definitions, requiring parking of motor vehicles in the driveway. A reduction in legally available parking is prohibited pursuant to Section 240-81, and parking spaces 0.6 ft. off the side line is prohibited pursuant to Section 240-79B, which requires such spaces be a minimum of 5.0 ft. from the property line all for a residence in an R-7.5 Zone District on the premises located at 16 Maplewood Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 118 Lot 350; 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 240-38B(1), Section 240-69, Section 240-4, Section 240-81, Section 240-79B; and WHEREAS, Thomas Moore/Stephanie Saia submitted an application for variances 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 variances sought are granted. In reaching this conclusion, the Board considered the following factors: A. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood. It is a unique street as it is not a rectilinear street but a curved street. The house is the closest in the required setback to the front property line and it is not noticeable on the street as there is no alignment of houses and gives an illusion it does have a property setback; B. The request is not substantial in nature. The front yard setback change from the existing is minimal. The driveway portion of the house as it presently exists is acceptable. There is no change to the environment and it is not out of character with the existing driveways; C. The variances will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, but are harmonious with the community. It presently is a small house, and the house as proposed to be expanded will be more in character with the homes in the community. D. The difficulty is not self-created; E. The granting of these variances are 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 variances are 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; Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 16 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 variances granted by this Board will enable such reasonable use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 2. The building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six (6) months and completed within two (2) years of the date of said permit; 3. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther informed the applicant to see the Building Department for the building permit. The Secretary read the next application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 2285 Application of G.M.S.F. Holdings, Ltd. (formerly Ian Ira Fisher) requesting a review of the building inspector's interpretation that the plans submitted for a building permit are not substantially in compliance with the revised plans submitted to the Board, dated January 16, 1997, 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. Tony Branca of 69 Harding Road, Old Greenwich, CT, appeared for G.M.S.F., Ltd., Mr. Branca said he was before the board in February and was granted a variance to build a house at 71 Colonial Avenue. The variance was granted with a 9 ft. side yard and a 5 ft. front yard variance. Mr. Branca showed a drawing of the house that was approved and commented on same. When the builders laid out the house, some suggestions were made and Mr. Branca accepted the minor changes. Mr. Jakubowski determined that the changes were not minor in nature and required Mr. Branca to reappear before the Zoning Board. Mr. Branca said the square footage of the original house was 1,910 sq. ft., marked as exhibit #1. Mr. Wexler asked about elevations. Mr. Branca said the elevations were submitted in the package sent to the Board which the members received. Mr. Branca said when the lot was cleared of trees, he realized how close the house would be to the properties in the rear, so the patio was moved to the back area. In order to facilitate the movement of the patio, the back door had to be moved. In the process, the other proposed changes occurred. Originally, there were two bay windows in the back. The newly proposed bay windows are connected straight across, Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 17 1111 with a little dodge added where the patio was proposed. The house was shrunk 6 in. in two ways, to fit inside the building envelope as originally approved by the Board. The difference is square footage being from 1,910 sq. ft. to 2,028 sq. ft. Mr. Branca said the two dormers were eliminated in the front and a reverse gable is proposed. Mr. Wexler said Mr. Branca proposed a house to the Board and the community that would look like other homes in the community that looked nice from the street. Now, the proposed house looks like a builder's house. Mr. Branca said the only difference to the front elevation is the removal of the two dormers in the front and replacing it with a reverse gable to break up the roof line. Mr. Kelleher asked if the contractor who made the changes had sat through the previous board meetings on this variance. Mr. Branca said the contractor that made the changes had not sat in at the previous board meetings. Ms. Gallent reminded the Board that this is an appeal of the building inspector's determination that the plans as submitted were not in substantial compliance with the plans that were approved. The first questions before you is do you agree with the building inspector that these plans are not in substantial compliance with those approved. The submission is not a request for a new variance. Mr. Branca said the house falls within the setbacks as originally granted at the February meeting. The interior floor plan works a lot better as currently proposed. If the Board feels adding dormers on the front are needed, Mr. Branca will add the dormers. 410 Mr. Kelleher said it is as if someone was trying to be disingenuous. Mr. Branca said absolutely not. When he purchased the property from Ira Fisher, he was given the set of plans which were Ira Fisher's plans. Mr. Branca wanted to get the house built and sold. The house was sold in June when Mr. Branca applied for the building permit, but because of the delay the deal has fallen through. The changes that were made, in Mr. Branca's opinion, are not significant changes to what was originally proposed. Mr. Jakubowski said the considerations are as follows. The plans submitted with the proposal included two bay windows, I-story bay windows. The bay window intruding into the side yard 6 ft. had to be reviewed on the basis of a bay window intrusion which is a separate part of the law which Mr. Jakubowski explained. When the window was converted to a two-story bay across the back, it was no longer a bay window. It was also a bigger bulk area on the back of the house. Mr. Jakubowski's opinion, based on the two one-story windows the Board saw, the upper level was kicked back 2 ft. and there was less of an intrusion in the area. The bump-out is shown on the plan where the terrace was. That space was an open space. It is a change in the plan and creates a bigger bulk area on the side. In the back of the house there is another big add-in, which was not discussed in any of the variances which still intrudes in the area and is a new variance. In addition, when reviewing the drawing, the front elevation and rear elevation, there were two dormers on the roof which are not now proposed. The roof is a simple roof line with a break on each end. The proposed roof line had four or five breaks on each end. The dormers are taken out and a reverse gable is proposed. There is not much of a change to the front porch. The front porch that existed was a light airy porch with a half moon roof. Now it has a totally different feel to it. In addition, in the back there were two bay windows and further back the main wall of the house. Now, there is one big wall of the house with a different architectural detail, and a bathroom and space above which is an intrusion to the area. The multiple breaks in the roof are not in conformity with plans originally submitted. Ms. Gallent explained that the applicant is appealing Mr. Jakubowski's determination. Mr. Wexler asked what happens if the Board agrees with the building inspector. Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 18 Ms. Gallent said if the Board agrees with the building inspector, the applicant must apply for a variance or build the house for which he has already obtained a variance. Mr. Jakubowski said the only additional point covered in this variance is the bay window that was in the advertisement but the notice does not list the new bay in the breakfast room. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the variance required for the bay window. Ms. Gallent said a variance is granted per the plans submitted. The board does not grant a blanket variance. A discussion followed regarding the variance previously granted. Ms. Gallent said the matter was referred to the Westchester County Planning Board, which had no comment. Ms. Martin asked Mr. Branca to explain his statement that the plans were inherited from the previous owner. Mr. Branca said he could have withdrawn the plans and resubmitted, but he did not want to lose the time which he lost anyway. Ms. Martin asked whether the contract of sale was on the original plans or revised plans. Mr. Branca said the contract of sale was on the revised plans. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board members or the public. Alan Marcus of 194 Murray Avenue appeared. Mr. Marcus said his back yard directly abuts the G.M.S.F. property, and based on what counsel has stated agrees that what is being presented is a substantially different plan than what was approved earlier. Mr. Gunther said with regard to responding to the memorandum to the Board, on motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and ADOPTED unanimously, 5-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, G.M.S.F. Holdings, Ltd. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans requesting a review of the building inspector's interpretation that the plans submitted for a building permit are not substantially in compliance with the revised plans submitted to the Board, dated January 16, 1997, 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; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board has reviewed the plans submitted to the Building Inspector with the application for a building permit and compared them to the plans approved in connection with the variance, dated March 4, 1997, in connection with the property; and Zoning Board September 4, 1997 Page 19 WHEREAS, there are significant differences between the two, including, but not limited to the replacement of a patio with a bathroom, the removal of dormers, the conversion of two (2) bay windows into a single window. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Building Inspector's determination that the plans submitted do not comply substantially with those approved in the March 4, 1997 variance. This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. Mr. Gunther reminded the Board members to complete and return the disclosure form provided by the Supervisor's office, if not already done. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Ms. Martin made a motion to approve the Minutes of July I, 1997, seconded by Mr. Kelleher and unanimously approved, 5-0. Ms. Martin made a motion to approve the Minutes of July 2, 1997, seconded by Mr. Gunther and unanimously approved, 5-0. Ms. Martin made a motion to approve the Minutes of July 29, 1997, seconded by Mr. Gunther and approved, 4-0. Mr. Simon abstained. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on September 24, 1997. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. Marg rite Roma, Recording Secretary