Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985_10_09 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD OCTOBER 9, 1985, IN THE AUDITORIUM OF THE WEAVER STREET FIREHOUSE, WEAVER STREET AND EDGEWOOD AVENUE, LARCHMONT, NEW YORK CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:10 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Sanford Bell, Chairman Mr. Lester Bliwise Mrs. Mary Carlson Mr. Emil Nicolaysen Mr. Anton Schramm Mr. Gaetano Scutaro Absent: Mrs. Caryl Mahoney Also present: Mr. Stephen V. Altieri, Town Administrator Mr. Lee A. Hoffman, Jr. , Town Counsel Mr. Gary Trachtman, Engineer to the Town Public Stenographer from Post Reporting Ser. , White Plains APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no minutes presented for approval. OLD ROAD PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL - Adjourned hearing on Public Hearing Old Road Development Corporation (Zelnick property) Block 330 Parcel 350 The Public Stenographer made a record of this Public Hearing which will be a part of the record. After discussion and consensus that the plan to be chosen should be SP4, a through road through Marbourne, Mr. Bliwise moved, Mrs. Carl- son seconded, and all members voted in favor of taking further time to review the resolution previously presented for approval. The Board has forty-five days to approve this resolution, one way or the other, and Mr. Bell asked that the resolution include firm blasting controls in the subdivision proposal. Mr. Bell moved, Mr. Schramm seconded, and all members voted in favor of passing a resolution directing Counsel to the Town to submit amended proposed conditions in accordance with the determination that the through street is the street being discussed. The Board set the next meeting date for November 13, 1985, and asked the developer to submit, if possible, ten days before that meeting a traffic study that will inform the Board as to what can be expected in traffic flow. AUTO SPA - PUBLIC HEARING ON SITE PLAN APPLICATION (continued) 178 Myrtle Blvd. Mr. Herbert Miller stated that the architect, Darcey Gibson, had com- October 9, 1985 plied with all the recommendations that the Engineer to the Town had set forth, all the new drawings have been signed off by the Engineer in regards to the Site Plan A resident living at 2 Washington Square expressed disappointment at seeing no rear elevation of the Site Plan because of the group of trees 18 inches in from the rear fence which have been there for many years and are beautiful when in bloom. Applicant said the chain link fence would be left where it is, and they had no intention of cutting down the trees. Counsel suggested adding a condition to the proposals that the appli- cant shall comply with the Tree Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck which prevents the cutting down of trees more than 4 inches in dia- meter, unless special dispensation has been granted. Applicant pointed out that there was just one tree and provisions could be made to go around it. In answer to a question, the appli- cant said the movement of cars was out of the bays and the owner takes the car away -- but not directly onto the street as had been shown on earlier plans. It was moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing with respect to the Site Plan and the vote was unanimous. Mr. Schramm suggested adding the conditions just discussed, that the application be subject to the Town Tree Law, and Counsel stated this could be added to the draft Resolution which the Board received in their mailing. Mr. Schramm moved that the Board adopt the draft Resolution and the additional conditions just discussed be included and the Tree Ordi- nance be complied with. A member of the audience asked to be shown on the plan where the sign will be placed, and applicant stated he intends to use the footings of the prior sign which show on one of the plans. He said it will be a new pylon sign on the existing base, perpendicular to the street. Counsel stated that the applicant would have to comply with the Sign Ordinance. Discussion followed about the size, height, and appropriateness of the sign, with Mr. Miller again stating that the applicant would con- form to whatever the building and sign codes were and they weren't looking for a variance. Town Counsel stated that the Planning Board does have the right under the Site Plan Ordinance to specify the size and location of signs on the premises. Counsel further stated that if the Site Plan was ap- proved without reference to the sign, he thought the applicant would have to come back to the Planning Board and get an amendment to the Site Plan, but this Board has the right, irrespective of the sign ordinance, to limit the placement and size of signs on the site, and October 9, 1985 this had been done before. Discussion followed about the sign's location, the size which had been determined by the Town, the sign's lighting which the Engineer to the Town had gone over and which would not shine into the apart- ment windows, and the hours the sign would be lit which would be during the hours of operation. After questioning, Mr. Miller said the sign would be lit until 10 P.M. , and the sign will be plastic, painted, and with lights inside the sign. He said it was a standard size made by a big sign manufacturer in Ohio, but can be made in different sizes to conform with regulations in different areas. The lettering, boxing, and lighting are standard, but the size con- forms with local zoning requirements. Their engineer had drawn it to conform with local zoning requirements. Mr. Schramm said there should be some time limit set on the opera- tion of the sign, and Counsel stated that it was appropriate to be done at this stage of Site Plan Approval since it was better than amending the Special Permit. After comments from Mr. Bliwise about the sign's location and Mrs. Carlson about its hours of operation, Mr. Miller asked if the sign that was there for many years was handled this way before. He said that the concrete platform to which the pylon is to be affixed is located in the driveway area where a garbage truck must pull in to pick up garbage. Applicant did not plan to make any changes and believed it conformed with whatever needed to be conformed with. Relocating that piece of concrete might interfere with something else, he said, and their engineer wasn't there, but everytime they read- just the plan, it becomes expensive and complicated. Mr. Bliwise pointed out that the sign on the front of the building is illuminated, and the Board may want to consider limiting the hours of both signs. Mr. Miller pointed out that the stores next door have signs that are lit for many more hours, but Mrs. Carlson said their lights were on only until they closed. Mr. Miller stated that the liquor store has lights on after closing and the applicant had given in to every demand, including not touching the tree. He pointed out the value of keeping a sign lit on a street that faces a major U.S. highway and a parking lot. He said the sign will not be illuminated to the rear of the building and will give a bit of advertising after closing, which is the purpose of an illuminated sign, and asked for a 10 P.M. shutoff time. Mr. Schramm felt that 7 P.M. was unreasonable, and after discussion, 9 P.M. was accepted as being reasonable by the Board and the applicant. Mr. Bliwise suggested a height limit on the sign, and Mr. Miller re- ferred to the ordinance which dictates such limits. Discussion fol- lowed about the height of the sign relative to the nearby buildings. Mr. Schramm amended his motion to accept the resolution granted by Counsel with the additional condition of complying with the Tree Ordi- October 9, 1985 nance and setting a time limit on the operation of the illumination of the signs from when Auto Spa opens until 9 P.M. . Mr. Bell seconded, with Mr. Bliwise voting for and Mrs. Carlson and Mr. Nicolaysen opposed because they initially opposed the Special Permit, they said. Counsel stated that the Board, in effect, had taken no action because four votes were required to deny or approve. The Site Plan Ordi- nance specifically requires the Board to make a decision within 60 days of closing the hearing. If the Board does not make a decision, then the application is deemed approved. In Counsel's opinion, dis- approval or a negative vote on one portion of the application, the Special Permit application, should not influence the vote on the Site Plan. Counsel drew an analogy to explain the necessity of voting independently on a two-part matter such as this, stating that the Court would say the same thing. The Board made a decision with respect to the Special Permit, and it was Counsel's opinion that a court would say that the Board would have to take that deci- sion as a given and evaluate the Site Plan independently of feelings about the granting of the Special Permit. The indication on the record that the two people who dissented were dissenting because they disapproved of the initial Special Permit application puts the Board at some legal risk, and it is necessary to say that so the Board is aware of it. Counsel has a concern that the Board act in a procedurally proper manner since most all Zoning and Planning Board cases are lost on procedural matters not on the substance of the de- cision,and the statements that Mr. Nicolaysen and Mrs. Carlson put on record with respect to the reasons for disapproving the Site Plan application were, in Counsel's opinion, a procedural error. This was being brought to their attention because Counsel believed that it puts the Board at a legal risk, and wasn't a valid basis for denying the Site Plan application. Mr. Nicolaysen reiterated what Counsel had said that if, in 60 days, the Board took no action, it would pass and his vote would stand. Discussion followed about how to break the impasse, with Counsel saying that the difficult issue was the Special Permit where many factors play a part whereas the Site Plan issue is more cut and dried and does not contain the same appearance of impropriety of not abstaining in voting that would apply to Special Permits. Mr. Scutaro still felt he should abstain from voting. Mr. Bell asked Counsel to report to the Board in the interim whether a member who is absent can vote subsequent to the meeting and have that vote counted as part of the meeting. Mr. Miller consented to this. Counsel asked to have this matter put on the agenda for November 13, 1985, and in the interim Counsel will explore the avenues discussed which might permit the Board to have a fuller vote in the interim, and if not, the Board will just proceed again on November 13th; if there is a decision, the Board will be in touch with Mr. Miller, and Counsel will inform the Board if such a vote is possible. The Public Stenographer left at this point, and the tape recorder was turned off. a'n.eJ