Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997_03_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK MARCH 26, 1997, IN THE COURT ROOM, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Thomas E. Gunther, Chairman lel 4 Patrick B. Kelleher ' J. Rend Simon 4 Arthur Wexler RECEIVED '• r•l Absent: Julian A. Martin 'MtS Also Present: Judith M. Gallent, Counsel William J. Gerety, Assistant Building Inspector \ Susan Sturino, Public Stenographer Terranova, Kazazes & Associates, Ltd. 49 Eighth Street New Rochelle, New York 10801 Marguerite Roma, Recording Secretary CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Gunther at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Gunther said there are only four Board members out of the potential five present. A case can be heard and move forward, but three Board members must vote on an action to for it to be effective. When an application is called, the applicant can either proceed or the application can be held over until the next meeting without prejudice. Mr. Gunther informed the Board a letter was received from a prior applicant, Richard Hein of 44 Sheldrake Avenue withdrawing his application, and read the letter into the record. Mr. Gunther said last month the Board had voted to remove the application from the calendar and considered the matter closed, • due to inactivity. The Secretary read the application as follows: APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 2253 (adjourned 1/22/97; 2/26/97) Application of Mr. & Mrs. M. Wojciechowski requesting a variance to construct a bedroom and bath addition with a rear yard of 20.6 ft.where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 20 Glen Eagles Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109 Lot 146. Mr. Gunther said this application was adjourned from January 22 and February 26, 1997 meetings, and asked if the applicant is present to identify himself for the record. Mr. Ned Stoll, the architect for the project, of Stoll & Stoll, Three Town Dock Road, New Rochelle appeared for the applicants. Mr. Stoll then proceeded to explain the revised plan in response the comments previously made by Board members; i.e. the amount of the variance requested be reduced to the absolute minimum required, in particular the area adjoining the area of the entrance to the house which adjoins the 1 Zoning Board March 26, 1997 Page 2 driveway. Mr. Stoll said in the revised submission,the entryway has been redesigned, so that that portion of the project requires no variance, and proceeded to demonstrate on the plans before the Board. Mr. Stoll then explained sheet A-4 of the plans in response to concerns made by the Board to substantially reduce the character of the portion of the addition facing the bend in the street; i.e. brought the roof down much lower, gable was reduced, lowered the entry, and is subdued from the prior expression. Mr. Stoll said the previous square footage of the extension into the setback was approximately 75 sq. ft., the current square footage in the setback area is just under 40 sq. ft. Mr. Stoll said he is hopeful the revisions are to the Board's satisfaction. Mr. Gunther asked if Mr. Stoll had addressed the screening on the plot plan that had been previously discussed. Mr. Stoll said the Wojciechowski's indicated at the previous meeting that screening discussed was acceptable to them, as they,like their neighbors,also desired privacy. At the point in the closest proximity to the property line, there was installed last year a row of about 25 to 30 arborvitae approximately 7 ft. tall now, spaced densely for privacy between the neighbors. Mr. Stoll said for the length of the property line immediately adjoining the property, screening is already in place. However, if there are other portions of the property line that need screening, the applicant will do so. Mr. Stoll then demonstrated on the site plan and marked the plan as he proceeded to discuss same. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Stoll to indicate what has been planted and what the applicant is planning to plant, which Mr. Stoll proceeded to do. 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. Judy Raab and Ms. Gladstone, neighbors who were concerned about privacy, appeared. Mr. Gunther asked Ms. Raab and Ms. Gladstone to review the plans, and said if they have any questions, Mr. Stoll will have an opportunity to respond. Mr. Stoll then proceeded to explain the revised plans to Ms. Raab and Ms. Gladstone. Ms. Raab asked if the height of the structure is still the same as the height of the structure previously, and the depth of the extension into the yard. Mr. Stoll said yes. Mr. Gunther said the addition is going beyond the setback, and what the applicant has appeared to do is reduce the amount that the extension is going beyond the setback by about half the amount shown in the prior plans. Mr. Stoll said the family room is moved back 6 in., the entry way is moved back entirely across the setback requiring a variance. Mr. Gunther suggested Mr. Stoll to draw a line through the family room where the setback is on page 1, so Ms. Raab can see what Mr. Stoll is referring to. Mr. Gunther said that is the only portion for which a variance is requested. A discussion ensued regarding the plantings. Mr. Gunther suggested if there is an interest in shrubbery to be provided for privacy, it should be indicated on the top page of the plot plan. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any pictures in the file. There were previous pictures that had been submitted, which were given to Mr. Gunther. Mr. Gunther suggested Zoning Board March 26, 1997 Page 3 referring to the tax map, as it will show the line of vision from one house to another and it becomes clear as to what portion of the property is affected. A discussion ensued. Mr. Stoll said for the Board's purpose, Ms. Raab is concerned about proper shielding on the property at the 36.14 ft. southerly corner. Mr. Gunther again stated that Ms. Raab should indicate her concerns on the plot plan, which was then done. Mr. Stoll said the discussion is about the 36.14 ft. area and coming around onto the beginning of the 122.95 ft. part of the property. Mr. Stoll asked if he could have a moment to discuss same with the Ms. Raab and Ms. Gladstone, which was done. Mr. Stoll said the Wojciechowski's would be happy to put screening plantings in the area discussed and said there is an existing 5 ft. fence around that portion of the property. Because the area is fairly shaded, there is some difficulty using arborvitae as a screened planting in that area but rhododendron can be used. Mr. Gunther said it can be dealt with by stating there will be plantings in that area, specifying the amount on center running approximately so many feet, the exact species to be determined. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the public. Ms. Raab asked if specifications for the height of the plantings can be made. Mr. Gunther said the Board generally does make specifications regarding the height of the plantings. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from Board members. There being none, on motion of Mr. Gunther,seconded by Mr.Wexler,the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Mr. & Mrs. M. Wojciechowski have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to construct a bedroom and bath addition with a rear yard of 21.0 ft. where 25.0 ft. is required pursuant to Section 240-37B(3);and further, the addition increases the extent by which the building is nonconforming pursuant to Section 240-69 for a residence in an R-10 Zone District on the premises located at 20 Glen Eagles Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 109 Lot 146; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Ordinance with particular reference to Section 240-37B(3)and Section 240-69; and WHEREAS, Mr. &Mrs.M.Wojciechowski 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: Zoning Board March 26, 1997 Page 4 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 lot is an irregularly shaped lot making it difficult to build within the rear yard line. B. The house on the lot is a unique, fine structure, specifically the roof and front area. C. 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. Indeed, the variance will permit a design that is in keeping with the community character. D. The variance is the minimum necessary in comparison to the size of the property and the size of the structure. The area of the variance is approximately one- third of one percent of the lot area. E. The variance will not adversely impact physical or environmental conditions in the area. 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 provide screening along the full length of the 36.14 ft. property line and continue for approximately 20 ft., plus or minus, along the 122.95 ft. property line with appropriate plantings of a minimum height of six (6) ft. above the ball in keeping with industry practice, 4 ft. on center. 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 told Mr. Stoll to see the Building Department for a permit, during regular business hours. Mr.Wexler said the conditions are tied specifically to the plans submitted to the Board,and voiced concern as to what happens if the applicant cannot proceed with the finishes/materials on the plans which can alter the shape and materials of the construction. 4 Zoning Board March 26, 1997 Page 5 Ms. Gallent said all the variances have a condition that states substantial compliance, which the Building Department will monitor. If there is a problem, the matter can be appealed within a reasonable period of time. Mr. Kelleher said it is the Building Inspector's responsibility to monitor the project. Mr. Stoll said he understands the Board's concerns. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 2256 (adjourned 2/26/97) Application of Thomas Krisanda for Kinko's requesting a variance to erect a sign on the parking lot side wall; the sign as proposed would be erected on a side wall of the building where side wall signs are prohibited pursuant to Section 175-11-B for signs to be erected in an Urban Renewal (UR) Zone District on the premises located at 1329 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412 Lot 309. Neil Carnow, the architect, of 325 N. Highland Avenue, Ossining,NY appeared, representing the owner. Mr. Gunther stated the Board received a letter from the Town and Village Coastal Zone Management Commission and read the letter into the record regarding the granting of the variance being inconsistent with Policy 25 of the LWRP. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Carnow if he cared to make any comments. Mr. Carnow said if the language of their response is specific to the Kinko sign, as opposed to a variance for an area of a sign discussed at the previous Board meeting, then the issue of Kinko's signage is a non- issue as they are not going to be the tenants. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Carnow if the proposed new tenants will be PIER I. Mr. Carnow said that is a possibility. Ms. Gallent asked if Mr. Carnow had any design for a PIER I sign. Mr. Carnow said he did not have any signage for PIER I. Mr. Wexler asked if it was premature to be discussing the granting of a variance, if the tenant is unknown. Mr. Gunther said it was not premature for granting a variance, because what was requested at the last meeting was to erect a sign on the parking lot side wall, and the notice of disapproval said the sign as proposed would be erected on the side wall of the building where side wall signs are prohibited pursuant to Section 175-11B for signs to be erected in an Urban Renewal Zone District. Mr. Wexler said the building permit for the sign is generated by a sign permit, a specific sign that is attached to a permit application for a sign. The Board will now be granting a variance without that initial step in place. Mr. Carnow said the process started with Kinko's, relative to the signage, understanding that the signage at the front facade and southern side of the building were as-of-right. At the time, there was also a monument sign located at the entrance to the driveway. In discussions with the Town, more specifically with the BAR, it was suggested that the applicant remove the monument sign, which was an issue with the Town, with the understanding that the BAR would present a positive report to the Zoning Board for a variance to allow signage on the north side of the building which would provide substitute visibility for signage on the north side of the building. Mr. Carnow said the monument sign has already been removed. Mr. Carnow said the landscaping plan has been presented to the BAR, which is satisfied with the plans. Mr. Carnow is simply asking for a variance for the area of the sign that was previously allocated to Kinko's, which is a mirror image of the signage on the south side, which is less in area that would Zoning Board March 26, 1997 Page 6 normally be allowed on the south side. Mr. Camow said the allowable area in which to place signage will ultimately go before the BAR for specific approval, along with any changes to the store front, colors, etc. as required. Mr. Gunther said as a point of information for the Zoning Board, he pointed out that the Board's responsibility in this matter is to accept or reject the letter and opinion from the CZMC, and to pass on whether or not a variance should be granted to install a sign. It is not the Zoning Board's jurisdiction to control the aesthetics of the sign,which falls under the BAR's jurisdiction. The Board either allows a sign or does not allow a sign. The Board also looks to see if there is an overriding public benefit to placing a wall sign in that location. When zoning is considered, the following is taken into account; i.e. the impact on the community, the significance of the variance being requested, is there a negative impact to the surrounding area as well, and what impact it has on the general neighborhood. It should be noted that the property location is on the Post Road which has been noted to be a rather dangerous site, there are several exits and entrances for different retail establishments along that area, and a motorist was killed several months ago turning into Edward's parking lot. The Town Traffic Committee is studying the area, and is particularly concerned about it as well. A sign located on the side wall of the building so that motorists can see the name on the building may, in fact, provide a positive element that would dictate the need for motorists straining to maneuver to look and see what the name of the building is as they drive by because the name of the sign is only on the front and not on the side, eliminating dangerous stops,curves and turns. The layout of the site makes a side wall particularly important, because motorists reach the parking lot before they reach the front of the building, and therefore are likely to make dangerous moves to enter the lot too late. Mr. Kelleher said this particular application sounds similar to Jack Coughlin's argument for a sign on the side of the building where his office is located, because prospective client's could not see the sign on the front of the building until reaching the front of that building. Mr. Gunther said if the BAR wanted the monument sign removed, and had much preferred to have a side wall sign to replace it, in this particular case it has been done. If the Zoning Board has concern about the graphics or image of the sign, that does not fall under the Board's purview. Last month the Board discussed the Kinko sign, the logo, the lighting in comparison to other signs in Town,and the Board is not in a position to pass on the aesthetics of a sign. A discussion ensued regarding the above. Mr. Camow said the public hearing was closed last month, with a poll taken showing the Board was in favor of the variance. Mr. Camow said he is before the Board this evening,because he was informed that a letter had been received from the CZMC. Mr. Camow said he was told last month there would be no reason for his appearance this evening, as the matter had been approved at the last meeting. Mr. Camow said the CZMC had comments to make, the BAR had other comments to make and had approved that particular sign. The reason the applicant was before the Zoning Board earlier was in regard to the monument sign, which has since been removed, and the placement of signage on the north face of the building. Mr. Gunther said there is a way to move forward with the application, and that is for the Board to deal with the CZMC's letter and with environmental and Town Law findings. Ms. Gallent then referred to the Local Consistency Law, stating the Board can accept CZMC's consistency determination or set it aside and discussed the three findings that would have to be made; i.e. there is no reasonable alterative, the action taken will minimize the adverse effect on that policy, the action will result in an overriding public benefit. Mr.Gunther said the CZMC did not inform the Board of anything more than what was stated in their letter, which is a part of the record. Zoning Boai i March 26, 1997 Page 7 Mr. Wexler asked if any member of the CZMC was present. Mr. Gunther said no member of the CZMC was present this evening. A discussion ensued. Mr. Kelleher said he is persuaded by what the architect said, the applicant has acted in good faith, has conformed to what has been asked of him, he had been given to understand that by taking down the monument sign he could effectively advertise on that side of the building. Mr. Kelleher felt the chairman was correct, that the responsibility of passing on the aesthetics of the sign is not the Board's responsibility. Mr. Gunther proposed that the Board move forward and disagree with the CZMC's findings, saying that no reasonable alternative exists to a side wall sign. Ms. Gallent said the Board only has to make those findings if it agrees with the CZMC, but if the Board wants to set aside the CZMC's findings, then the Board has to explain why it disagrees. The Board can accept what the CZMC states, and still act if the three findings are made. A discussion ensued. Mr. Gunther said one of the reasons for disagreeing with the CZMC, is that their reasons are not clear and asked if that was sufficient. It is really impossible to know whether we agree or disagree with the CZMC, because its letter to the Board is devoid of any explanation. It simply states a conclusion without any reasoning. Ms. Gallent said Mr. Gunther can notify the CZMC that their findings are incorrect, it must be in letter form and signed by the chairman. Mr. Gallent asked if the determination is to set aside the CZMC findings, as there is no justification set forth in the letter to the Board. A discussion ensued. Mr. Gunther said the scenic quality of coastal area matches the logo on their letterhead, which has to do with visibility of the coast and scenic area, and the Boston Post Road in that neighborhood is nowhere near the waterfront. Ms. Gallent said the entire Town is defined as a coastal area, but the Board may find that that area of the coastal area is a heavily developed coastal area and has similar signs. Mr. Kelleher said what the applicant is asking for is consistent with what is along that stretch of the road. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the impact of signage in that area. Ms. Gallent said the variance can be conditioned. Mr. Gunther said the double faced concrete based monument sign that was in place before and has since been removed in favor of the wall sign, is facing the exact same direction as was being proposed on the left side of the building. The comments about putting the sign on the wall in comparison to what is there already is exactly the same. Mr. Wexler asked how high the sign would be. Mr. Carnow said the sign would be about 11 ft. high. A discussion ensued regarding the height of the rock ledge, and the impact of the signage on the neighbors. Mark Ellman, owner of the property, appeared and stated the reason they are present this evening in the absence of a sign being drawn by PIER I is that Kinko's had a change in their prototype size store and wanted to reduce the size of the store. Mr. Ellman was able to secure an equally desirable tenant in PIER I. It is a condition to a PIER I lease that they know they have signage on the side wall, because the monument is now no longer there. PIER I will not lease the building without assurance that they will have adequate signage to be able to do business. Mr. Ellman said they do intend to go back to the BAR with • Zoning Board March 26, 1997 Page 8 final signage, colors, and store front. The reason he moved forward a month ago with a generic area was because they knew it would be an issue. Front signage only is not sufficient. Without a variance, the property is essentially valueless as a retail property. When previously before the Board, a generic variance was discussed with a certain square footage, whether the signage would be seeable from the houses on the rock ledge and it was determined it would not be, as you can only see the top of the roof of the building from those houses. A poll was taken unanimously in favor of the variance last month, with a caveat that it had be referred to the CZMC. Mr. Ellman said he is challenged to find an adverse impact on Long Island Sound by a 20 sq. ft. sign that is probably one-half a mile from the water. It defies logic. Mr. Ellman is faced with a very valuable piece of real estate he is trying to tenant, with a tenant that would be a benefit to the Town. It is either reerecting the monument sign or having a side wall sign. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding monument signs and signage. Mr. Wexler asked Mr. Ellman if he discussed the Board's concerns with the prospective tenant. Mr. Ellman said the concerns have been addressed with PIER I; i.e. brightness, color, context, and the procedures that need to be followed. The sign being applied for is of prime importance to PIER I, specifically because of the lack of a monument sign. A discussion ensued regarding the type of lettering used for the sign. Ms. Gallent said comments can be made to the BAR from the Zoning Board. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any other questions from the Board. Mr. Gunther then proceeded to discuss the Board's disagreement to the findings in the CZMC letter Ms. Gallent will draft the letter to the CZMC informing it that the Board has determined to set aside the CZMC's consistency determination in regard to the disagreement. A discussion ensued regarding the environmental form. Mr. Wexler suggested the Board be polled. Mr. Gunther asked Mr. Simon his preference. Mr. Simon said he would like to see what is on the sign. Ms. Gallent said all the Board is being asked to do is to approve a sign being located on the side wall, whether putting the sign on the side wall is a benefit or detriment, and Mr. Gunther expressed the view that safety would be a benefit to a side wall sign. A discussion followed regarding the granting of a variance for a side wall sign, and whether or not a new variance needed to be granted, if the tenant changes. Ms. Gallent said conditions can be set on any variance granted regarding lighting, shielding lighting and types of letters used. The BAR will also have to approve the aesthetics of the sign. Mr. Gunther said the inquiry within the Board's jurisdiction is, whether the benefit to the applicant outweighs detriment to the community by putting a sign on the building. Because of the safety concerns of the neighborhood at that location, Mr. Gunther feels it is better to have the sign on the building rather than have the sign only on the front of the building, which is what is permitted under the zoning. Mr. Kelleher said he would be in favor of granting the variance as applied for, with a few conditions. Zoning Board March 26, 1997 Page 9 Mr. Gerety said conditions such as lighting, color, etc. will go to the BAR. In making a comparison with the Erosion Control Law, there are parameters and specifics that have to be met. The Board does not decide those parameters. Mr. Gunther is in favor of granting a variance to permit the placement of a sign, with some conditions on the side of the building;i.e. illumination not being continuous, meaning 24 hours, and not be projected so that the houses above would be impacted by it, and leaving the aesthetic value of the sign to the BAR. Mr. Gunther asked about the limitations in the code for sign sizes and height. Mr. Gerety said the maximum height is 32 in., and the actual length 50 ft. A discussion ensued. Mr. Gunther said what was proposed was a 30 in. letter, 4 ft. high sign, by approximately 20 ft. long. A discussion continued regarding the size of the sign, the size of the letters, placement, and the impact on the houses set back from the edge of the hill by a minimum of 10 ft. Mr. Wexler said if the variance can be tailored in such a way that it will not be a detriment to the community, he would be in favor of it. Mr. Gunther read the draft of the Negative Declaration prepared by counsel to the Board, which is a part of the record. On motion of Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. 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. Simon, the following resolution was ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Thomas Krisanda has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to erect a sign on the parking lot side wall; the sign as proposed would be erected on a side wall of the building where side wall signs are prohibited pursuant to Section 175-11-B for signs to be erected in an Urban Renewal (UR) Zone District on the premises located at 1329 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412 Lot 309; 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 175-11-B for signs to be erected in an Urban Renewal (UR) Zone District; and WHEREAS, Thomas Krisanda 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 March 26, 1997 Page 10 A. The installation of the sign on the side of the building will improve traffic safety on the Boston Post Road by enabling motorists to more easily identify the building without resorting to unsafe maneuvers to do so.The location on the Boston Post Road at which the Property is located is a particularly dangerous site. There are several exits and entrances into different retail establishments in the vicinity,including Stop and Shop and Dunkin Donuts. A motorist was killed several months ago turning into Stop and Shop. The Town's Traffic Committee is studying this area and is particularly concerned about it as well. A side wall sign will enable motorists to identify the site without straining and maneuvering in this particularly dangerous location to see the front as-of-right sign. In addition, the Proposed Action is also expected to alleviate safety problems caused by the layout of the Property. Under existing conditions,motorists reach the parking lot before they reach the front of the building and its as-of-right sign. A motorist would be almost past the site's parking lot before he or she could read the front sign and might be tempted to make dangerous maneuvers to get into the parking lot after seeing the sign. Accordingly, significant positive impacts on traffic safety are expected as a result of the granting of the variance. B. The BAR requested that the monument sign advertising the identity of the tenant be removed. The sign on the side wall is now necessary to make the property commercially viable. C. The variance is the minimum necessary to make the building identifiable yet also preserves and protects the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. Indeed, as described above, it will enhance safety in the area. There are no feasible alternatives. D. 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. Any lighting of the sign shall not create a negative impact on the surrounding residential community adjoining the property. 2. The sign shall be lit only during the hours of retail operation. 3. The area of letters shall not occupy an area greater than 30 in. in height and 10.8 ft. in length, starting at a point 30 in. from the right side of the north fascia. 4. The applicant shall obtain a building permit within (6) months of the filing of this Resolution; 5. 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; 6. Construction shall be in substantial compliance with the plans submitted in connection with this application. • Zoning Board March 26, 1997 Page 11 This decision shall be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267-a(2) of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 2257 Application of Elahe and Albert Ohebshalom requesting a variance to maintain a newly erected 6 ft. stockade fence which exceeds the maximum four (4) foot height allowed pursuant to Section 240-52A for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 2 Lakewood Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 102 Lot 157. Albert Ohebshalom of 2 Lakewood Lane, Larchmont, NY appeared. Mr. Gunther asked if there were pictures available, which the secretary provided. Mr. Ohebshalom stated that when they moved to 2 Lakewood Lane, which is on the corner of Weaver Street and Lakewood Lane, there was a preexisting 6 ft. chain link fence on the side of the yard which is Weaver Street. Mr. Ohebshalom said they tried to enhance the area by covering the chain link fence with a wood fence, which makes the area look much cleaner and better. Mr. Ohebshalom said he has two children, one with asthma and the other with allergies, and the fence was installed to limit the exhaust fumes from the cars and noises. The greenery has been lost on the side yard because of the heavy salting of the roadway, causing excessive damage. Mr. Gunther asked when the fence was erected, and if the applicant was aware of the Town Fence Law. Mr. Ohebshalom said fence was erected approximately three to four months ago, and that he was unaware of the Town's Fence Law at that time. Mr. Ohebshalom said there are other six ft. high fences in the surrounding areas. Mr. Gunther asked if the fence was double sided. Mr. Ohebshalom said the fence is not double sided, but the good side is facing outward and he has tried to plant inside the fence. Mr. Gunther suggested Mr. Ohebshalom waterproof the wood fence. Mr. Wexler asked if Mr. Ohebshalom would be amenable to installing some shrubbery on the street side of the fence. Mr. Ohebshalom said he will put low planting, holly, and will reseed that portion by the fence. Mr. Ohebshalom said there is a drainage problem, and the Town will install some gravel by the sidewalk as Weaver Street is a State road and difficult to maintain. Mr. Ohebshalom said some gravel was put near the sidewalk where it meets the asphalt. A discussion ensued. Mr. Gunther asked if there were any further questions from the Board. Mr. Gerety said the pictures show a fence that stops,and there is going to be a return on the fence because it is a corner property and the Visibility at Intersections Law comes into play. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the following resolution was proposed and adopted unanimously, 4-0. RESOLVED, that this is a Type II action having no significant impact on the environment pursuant to 6 NYCRR §617 et seq. Accordingly, no further action under SEQRA is required. On motion of Mr. Wexler, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the following resolution was ADOPTED: Zoning Board March 26, 1997 Page 12 WHEREAS, Elahe and Albert Ohebshalom have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to maintain a newly erected 6 ft. stockade fence which exceeds the maximum four(4) foot height allowed pursuant to Section 240-52A for a residence in an R-30 Zone District on the premises located at 2 Lakewood Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 102 Lot 157; 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 240-52A; and WHEREAS, Elahe and Albert Ohebshalom 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. Weaver Street is a highly trafficked area and cars seem to go faster than the posted speed limit, thereby creating a noise and pollution problem for the applicant. B. The six foot high fence will allow the applicant to further enjoy his property by keeping dust, salt and noise out. C. No undesirable change in the character of the area will be produced by the erection of the fence because the applicant will plant holly along the street side of the fence and heavily landscape the return of the fence as it goes to Lakewood Lane. In addition, there are many other fences of this height in the area. D. The new fence is merely an addition to a preexisting 6 ft. chain link fence in existence since 1963. E. The fence will prevent the spraying of salt from state route 125 onto the applicant's property. 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. There are no alternatives that would accomplish the applicant's objectives of keeping out noise, dust and salt. 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. H. The difficulty is not self-created. /3 Zoning Board March 26, 1997 Page 13 NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall maintain the integrity of the fence. 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 advised Mr. Ohebshalom to see the Building Department during regular business hours for a building permit. APPROVAL OF MINUTES After some discussion, on a motion made by Mr. Gunther, seconded by Mr. Kelleher, the Minutes of February 26, 1997 were approved, 4-0. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of this Board will be held on April 30, 1997. ADJOURNMENT On a motion made and seconded, the meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Margu to Roma, Recording Secretary