Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996_06_20 Board of Architectural Review Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK JUNE 20, 1996, IN THE SENIOR CENTER, TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK Present: Edward Z. Jacobson, Chairman Robert M. Immerman Lucian J. Leone Pamela T. Washington E. Robert Wassman Absent: Joan Williams Also Present: William Gerety Assistant Building Inspector CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jacobson at 8:06 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mr. Jacobson asked the Board if there were any comments on the Minutes of the last meeting. Ms. Washington said there was an error on page 3, last paragraph, first word, last line, should read effective. Mr. Jacobson said there is one additional correction on page 2, under Nautilus Diner of Mamaroneck, first paragraph, second line, should read, ..."materials to be used were discussed." Mr. Wassman commented on the format of the Minutes, stating previously the attorney had directed the Board through the Building Inspector to use a certain recitation format which made the conclusion stand out much better and recited what the case was, what the findings were and what the vote was and said it should be reviewed and discussed with the present secretary. Mr. Jacobson said he will review a copy of previous Minutes and review the format. Upon a motion made by Mr. Wassman, and seconded, the Minutes as corrected of the May 16, 1996 meeting were unanimously approved. Mr. Jacobson read the application as follows: NAUTILUS DINER OF MAMARONECK - 1240 Boston Post Road - Block 408 Lot 110 - additions/alterations Mr. Ravo from DeRaffele Manufacturing Co. and Steve Efstathiou, owner of Nautilus Diner, appeared. Mr. Jacobson informed Mr. Ravo that the Board simply wanted to confirm the landscaping, the only issue of concern to the Board at this time. Mr. Ravo asked if the parking situation had been resolved. Mr. Gerety said the parking situation is still an open question. Board of Architectural Review June 20, 1996 Page 2 • Mr. Efstathiou said the trees are designated on the plan, per the Board's request. Mr. Jacobson asked if there were any comments regarding the plan. Mr. Ravo said the applicant would like to add a slight change which would eliminate the curved glass at the roof line. - Ms. Washington asked if Mr. Efstathiou is going to have a solid roof and glass along the front and asked if there is any skylight? Mr. Efstathiou said he has a solid roof, the change would just be on the curve. Mr. Jacobson said as far as the landscaping is concerned, the Board agrees that it is an acceptable plan. On a motion made by Ms. Washington,seconded by Mr. Leone, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Steve Efstathiou of.Nautilus Diner of Mamaroneck has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to add a Garden Room on the premises located at 1240 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 408 Lot 110; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the review by the Board of Architectural Review is required; and WHEREAS, Steve Efstathiou of Nautilus Diner of Mamaroneck submitted an application for approval to the Board; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The landscape plan as submitted is accepted. Mr. Jacobson asked for a motion on the change to the roof configuration of the addition. On a motion made by •Mr. Immerman, seconded by Mr. Wassman, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Steve Efstathiou of Nautilus Diner of Mamaroneck has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to add a Garden Room on the premises located at 1240 Boston • Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 408 Lot 110; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the review by the Board of Architectural Review is required; and WHEREAS, Steve Efstathiou of Nautilus Diner of Mamaroneck submitted an application for approval to the Board; and Board of Architectural Review June 20, 1996 Page 3 • WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The revised roof configuration is accepted. Mr. Gerety said for reference, the revised roof configuration is Revision 2 dated 6/20/96. Mr. Jacobson read the next application as follows: DUNKIN DONUTS - 1311 Boston Post Road - Block 412 Lot 288 -addition Richard Hein, architect, appeared, and stated he thought the Board had his recent submission. Mr. Jacobson said the primary issues for the BAR are the landscaping and the physical aspect of the proposed addition. Mr. Wassman asked the applicant about the interior changes to the toilets. Mr. Hein said the applicant is making interior changes to the toilets, complying with the handicap. Dimensionally there is a problem, clearance is inadequate,physical restraints on both sides,and Mr. Gerety and Mr. Hein will discuss the matter. The kitchen is operational, but things are tight. Mr. Jacobson asked if there were any other comments from the Board on the submission. There being none, on a motion made by Mr. Wassman, seconded by Ms. Washington, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Dunkin Donuts has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to host new environmental non C.F.C. refrigeration units, extend existing kitchen, extend existing office, and upgrade existing to new H/C bathroom facilities; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the review by.the Board of Architectural Review is required; and • WHEREAS, Dunkin Donuts submitted an application for approval to the Board; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The submission as submitted is accepted. A member of the Board asked if the plants to be installed were listed. Board of Architectural Review June 20, 1996 Page 4 Mr. Hein said the plants were listed on the last submission. The Bradford Pear is the street trees which are matching across the street, and there are Taxus Cuspidato which are 5 ft. to 6 ft. high screening the base of the brick wall. Mr. Jacobson asked if Mr. Hein could amend the plan when submitting it to the Building Department. Mr. Hein said he will amend the plan. Mr. Jacobson read the next application as follows: 172 MYRTLE BLVD. APT. CORP./Marylinn Taylor,President - 172 Myrtle Blvd. -Block 133 Lot 652 -alterations Marylinn Taylor, President of the Co-op and manager of the building,the applicant,and the superintendent of the building,Martin Griffin, appeared. Mr. Griffin prepared the drawing submitted showing the false chimneys which rise 3 ft. above the roof which the applicant wants to remove because they are unstable, leaky and cannot be repaired. The applicant stated that the building is built out to the edge of the property line. On one side is the parking lot for Washington Square apartment buildings,and on the other side there is a building right next to it, i.e. adjoining walls. Mr. Jacobson asked specifically what is the problem with the false chimneys, other than the above mentioned, and asked if they are built of masonry. Ms. Taylor said the false chimneys are built of masonry. Ms. Taylor referred the Board to the pictures submitted which were taken on the roof showing the present condition. The chimneys never served any purpose other than being decorative. Mr. Immerman asked if is Ms.Taylor's intention after moving the false chimneys to finish the surface with a tile coping flush with the adjacent coping? Ms. Taylor said the chimney would be finished off so that there would be a straight line of tiles. Mr. Jacobson said as a matter of curiosity what would the cost be to remove the chimneys compared to repairing them. Ms. Taylor said the cost of removal is very reasonable, it's$8,000.00 for all of them. A cost for repair was not determined. Mr. Jacobson asked if there were any other comments from the Board. Mr. Immerman said the chimneys are a significant part of the architecture of the building. Mr. Jacobson said he feels that this is the important point. How the applicant solves the water proofing is not the Board's problem. Mr. Wassman said in trying to discourage the applicant from removing the 8 chimneys is not going to correct the roofing/parapet problem. It persists throughout the parapet and that needs to be treated. What the applicant is trying to do is treat the leak by removing the chimneys. Ms. Taylor said that is not the case. The chimneys are unstable and can fall. Pieces have already fallen. Mr. Jacobson said that regrettably for the applicant, some members of the Board feel that they are an aesthetic asset to the building and would not like to see the building lose them. Board of Architectural Review June 20, 1996 Page 5 Mr. Gerety suggested that the Board focus on whether the Board accepts the building without the false chimneys or does not. Ms. Washington said she could imagine the building both ways, and the Board agrees that the building looks nicer with the chimneys. Is the building so significant or special that the aesthetic opinion of the building, with or without the parapets, is worth the energy and time and comfort of the people who live in the building and asked how important is this issue. Mr. Wassman said he would like to know what the cost benefit really is if the applicant was able to restore the chimneys. Ms. Taylor has not gotten any bids regarding the repair of the chimneys. Mr.Wassman said the applicant has not explored that avenue, because the easiest way to solve the problem is to remove the chimneys which he understands. Mr. Jacobson said the particular building suffers from a lack of interesting detail, and he feels the building would suffer from the loss of the chimneys. Mr. Jacobson would hate to see the building lose more of what little interesting architectural detail it has left. If the applicant were to explore more fully the cost aspects of preserving the chimneys and come back before the Board and convince the Board that itis a significant hardship to retain and repair the chimneys, then perhaps the Board will consider the removal of the chimneys. At this point in time, the Board feels that lacking any additional evidence, the Board would like to see the chimneys preserved if possible. Mr. Jacobson said the Board's interest is to preserve the things that are important. It may be that the stucco coating is lose and could fall off. The Board does not know if the masonry that is used to build the chimneys is unstable. A detailed discussion ensued regarding the cost of repair or restoration of the chimneys. Mr. Wassman said in the schedule presented, many have referred to the fact that there is extensive re- stuccoing needed and do not dwell on the eight chimneys, and said he does not know if Kay has been asked to give a figure on re-stuccoing the chimneys. Ms. Taylor said there are only figures on square footage for masonry. On a motion made by Ms. Washington, seconded by Mr. Wassman, the following resolution was unanimously ADOPTED: WHEREAS, Marylinn Taylor, President, of 172 Myrtle Blvd. Apt. Corp. has submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans to remove eight leaking,unstable false chimneys which rise 3 ft. above the roof on the north and south sides of a 6-story building;and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has declined to issue such permit on the grounds that the review by the Board of Architectural Review is required; and WHEREAS,Marylinn Taylor,President,of 172 Myrtle Blvd.Apt.Corp.submitted an application for approval to the Board; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, inspected the site, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT Board of Architectural Review June 20, 1996 Page 6 RESOLVED, that the subject application be and the same is granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. If the chimneys are found to be unstable and deemed to be necessary to be removed, that spanish roof tile be extended to the areas where the chimneys are removed to match the existing coping. Ms. Taylor said on the motion made, who will determine if the chimneys are unstable. Ms. Washington said the Building Department will determine if the chimneys are unstable. Mr.Jacobson said if the chimneys are not determined to be unstable, then the Board would like to see them preserved. Ms. Taylor asked at what point, based upon the decision of the Building Department, will she be able to proceed. Mr. Gerety said the Building Department will meet with Ms. Taylor at a mutually agreed upon time, and if the chimneys are found to be unstable he will report to the BAR at the next meeting. Ms. Taylor asked if she would have to return to the BAR for another hearing before proceeding. Mr. Gerety said if the chimneys are unstable Ms. Taylor can proceed, but if the chimneys are found to be stable then she will have to deal with that. Mr. Jacobson asked if there were any other matters before the Board. Mr. Wassman said that the Chase Bank on the Boston Post Road is still deficient in their planting. A tree was never planted in the southwest corner along the Post Road, and one of the trees planted on the side street needs to be replaced. Ms. Washington asked if Mr. Gerety investigated whether the deli across from Staples took down the white sign, after the Board approved the awning signs. Mr. Gerety said he has spoken to the deli owners on many occasions, each time receiving various reasons from the owner for not taking the sign down, i.e. selling, not selling, etc. ADJOURNMENT • Upon a motion duly made and seconded, the meeting was unanimously adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Marguerite Ro Recording Secretary