MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK, NEW YORK, HELD ON THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 2009 AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COURTROOM AT 169 MT. PLEASANT AVENUE, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK.
These are intended to be “Action Minutes” which primarily record the actions voted on by the Zoning Board at the meeting held June 4, 2009. The full public record of this meeting is the audio/video recording made of this meeting and kept in the Zoning Board’s Records.
PRESENT: Robin Kramer, Acting Chairperson
George Mgrditchian, Secretary
Gregory Sullivan
Barry Weprin
Steven Silverberg, Counsel to Board
John Winter, Director of Buildings
Robert Melillo
ABSENT: Chairman Neuringer, Chairman
Lisa Casey, Court Reporter, was present at the meeting to take the stenographic minutes, which will not be transcribed unless specifically requested.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to Order by Acting Chairperson Kramer at 7:08 p.m. and she detailed the procedures for the meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 22, 2009. There will not be an August meeting. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked that all present take note of the exit doors in case of emergency. Acting Chairperson Kramer indicated that any materials for the ZBA meeting had to be presented to the ZBA Office five days before the meeting.
Acting Chairperson Kramer began the meeting by asking if anyone wished to have their application adjourned since there was not a full Board present at tonight’s meeting. Donald Mazin, Esq. requested his applicant, Fitim Balaj (#19A-2009), be adjourned. The applications of Raul Silva (#28A-2008), Susan & Graham Copley (#16A-2009) and 306 Fayette Avenue Realty (#11SP-2006) were also adjourned.
Acting Chairperson Kramer opened the meeting with renewals of special permits.
- 1. Application #8SP-1995, CAFÉ MOZART
Applicant was not present at the time the application was called. Acting Chairperson Kramer stated that the applicant was probably not currently present because he was on the agenda later in the evening. The applicant would be called up again later.
- 2. Application #1SP-1996, PICCOLO MULINO, INC.
Ed Davidson appeared and stated that this was the third renewal for the restaurant. He indicated that there had been no changes (same hours of operation) or alterations to the restaurant for the past six years. He also stated that he had been a good neighbor, had no violations and wished to renew his special permit.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Sullivan.
- 3. Application #1SP-2000, JUST MEZE, INC.
Bekir Helvacioglu appeared. He indicated that there were no changes to the restaurant and the hours of operation would continue to be the same.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
- 4. Application #6SP-2003, LITTLE FLOWER NURSERY SCHOOL
Leila Marie Badran appeared. The applicant wishes to increase the student population by sixteen, but the hours will remain the same (8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.). There are nine employees and 60 students. There are still two sessions a day, with a choice of ½ day or a full day enrollment. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if the traffic flow had changed. Ms. Badran indicated that it had not due to the staggered drop-off of the school buses. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if teachers coordinate the traffic during drop-off and pick-up. Ms. Badran answered that they do.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application.
Joseph Bernard, a neighbor of the school, addressed the Board and indicated that he had some concerns with the additional students and increased noise in the area. Victor Zimet also addressed the Board and stated that a fence separates his yard and the school. Mr. Bernard added that noise, during play period, can be very loud since the play area is adjacent to their properties. Mr. Bernard does not want to discourage the school and the good things the school does, but both men work from home and it can be very noisy when the children are outside. Mr. Weprin asked the gentlemen if it would be helpful to talk with the school regarding their concerns. Mr. Bernard answered that it would. Ms. Badran stated that this was the first she had heard of any concerns regarding the school.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if the three individuals would be willing to meet and then come back to the Board at the next meeting. Ms. Badran indicated that the school’s location was approved by the Board and other agencies. Mr. Sullivan asked if the existing playground had always been there. Ms. Badran answered that it had been newly built. Mr. Zimet indicated that he would like to move the playground. He stated that he was concerned about more students adding more noise. Mr. Zimet, Mr. Bernard and Ms. Badran agreed to meet and then come before the Board again on July 22, 2009.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone else in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.
A motion to adjourn the public hearing to July 22, 2009 was made by Mr. Weprin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan.
5. Application #9SP-2009, RAKESH PATEL
Rakesh Patel appeared. Mr. Patel indicated that he currently runs a business at 328 Mamaroneck Avenue. Business is slow and he would like to run a deli. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked what type of food would be served and if a kitchen would be utilized. Mr. Patel answered that he would need a kitchen and the type of food would include a juice bar, salad bar and fast food items. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if there was a kitchen currently on premises. Mr. Patel answered no. The current hours of operation are 8:00 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekends and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if this establishment would be for take-out only and Mr. Patel answered no, that he would have sixteen seats available for patrons. Acting Chairperson Kramer inquired
about health permits and Mr. Patel said he has not applied for them yet because he needs the Board’s approval first. John Winter (Building Department) indicated that no health permits are issued until there is a C of O.
Discussion arose regarding the proximity of restaurants to each other (200 feet next to each other) and granting of variances. A question regarding other establishments with special permits that are closer than 200 feet to each other was brought up and it was determined that those establishments had been grandfathered in. Mr. Mgrditchian inquired as to when the 200 feet law come into effect. Mr. Winter answered that it was in 1996. Rob Melillo (Building Department) indicated that this applicant’s establishment is half deli, half convenience store and not a full deli. Mr. Mgrditchian indicated that this might be a use change because it was going from a convenience store to a food establishment. Mr. Melillo clarified that the applicant was not getting rid of the convenience store. Mr. Winter stated that if it is a deli, than the 200 feet rule should apply. If, however, the establishment is a fast food establishment, than the rule would not apply. Acting Chairperson Kramer
requested that Mr. Winter communicate with the applicant to clarify these questions. Mr. Silverberg stated that if a variance is needed, the applicant will have to re-notice.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone else in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.
A motion to adjourn the public hearing to July 22, 2009 was made by Mr. Weprin, seconded by Mr. Mgrditchian.
6. Application #8SP-1995, CAFÉ MOZART
Saidur Dawn appeared and indicated that he is renewing his special permit to operate a restaurant. Mr. Weprin asked if there were any changes and Mr. Dawn indicated that nothing had changed and the hours would remain the same.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone else in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
7. Application #8SP-2009, SIXTIES ENTERPRISES, INC.
Sebastiano Foci appeared. He indicated that he was here for a special permit to operate a pizzeria. Mr. Foci indicated that the hours of operation would be 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if alcohol would be served and Mr. Foci indicated that no alcohol would be served. Mr. Mgrditchian inquired about the fire suppression system. Mr. Foci indicated that there was a system in place.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone else in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
8. Adjourned Application #25A-2008, WILLIAM J. AND BARBARA PAONESSA
Mr. Paonessa appeared. Acting Chairperson Kramer indicated to the applicant that the Building Department had just handed the file to her and that the Board would take a few moments to review the file.
Mr. Paonessa stated that he was up to code with his C of O from 1986. He indicated that he had submitted papers to the Building Department which Mr. Winter was not aware of. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if the Board could see his copies. Mr. Paonessa passed out documents relating to the deck dated 1986. In 1986, Mr. Paonessa took possession of the house. He stated that the premises and permit are in compliance with existing laws. Mr. Weprin asked when Mr. Spanelli had done the survey and Mr. Paonessa answered that it was done six months ago. Mr. Paonessa asked for Mr. Silverberg’s interpretation of the previous Building Inspector’s letter and Mr. Silverberg answered that the letter was self-explanatory. Acting Chairperson Kramer indicated that the terrace
looks like a different structure and also pointed out the concrete footings. Mr. Paonessa indicated that there were no footings originally. Mr. Paonessa indicated that he added more to the deck to move toward the pool. Board members viewed and discussed the pictures amongst themselves. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone on the Board wished to ask questions. None did.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application. Jan Yankocy approached the Board. She indicated that she was here two months ago to ask the Board to deny the applicant’s variance. She has concerns about the structure. She stated that there was always a screen that covered the pool and that there was always a setback. Now there is no privacy screen or setback. Ms. Yankocy indicated that the deck is right up to the fence. There is no space between the fence and deck. She also stated that screening should not have to be done by neighbors. Mr. Weprin asked if the pre-existing deck extended to the property line in the past. Ms. Yankocy indicated the 1986/1987 pictures showed how the deck did not
go up to the property line. Mr. Weprin stated that the deck did appear to go up to the bushes. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked Mr. Paonessa if these were his bushes. Mr. Paonessa indicated that the bushes were on his neighbor’s property and they were taken down by the neighbor. Mr. Paonessa also stated that he intends to put a privacy fence up once the deck issue is resolved. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if the setback requirement has been in existence since before 1986 and Mr. Winter indicated that it had been. Mr. Weprin asked if Mr. Winter would send a similar letter to Mr. Paonessa today. Mr. Winter answered that the letter does not say it is a legal structure. The letter simply states what is there.
Ms. Yankocy stated that originally the pool pipe was never exposed. She indicates that Mr. Paonessa moved the plumbing. Originally, the pipe was under ground. Mr. Sullivan asked for clarification that the bushes were removed in 2002 and Ms. Yankocy answered yes, they were removed in 2002. Discussion arose regarding spacing to the property line. Mr. Weprin stated that there was no dispute that a variance is needed. The issue for Mr. Weprin is whether the deck was extended.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone else wished to address the Board. Ron Marino addressed the Board. He stated that he built the new deck in 1995 and indicated that around the pool was two feet of concrete and wood beyond it. To eliminate slippery issues, a cedar deck was put on top. There is also a tank underneath the deck. Mr. Marino stated that he can testify that the deck did not go any deeper than originally indicated. Mr. Weprin asked if there had been any changes to the deck since it was built in 1995 and Mr. Marino indicated that there had not been.
A motion to adjourn the public hearing to July 22, 2009 was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
9. Adjourned Application #4S-2009, ANGELO SALZILLO
Steve Chester, Signs, Inc. appeared on behalf of the applicant. He indicated that this was a new store opening in mid June. There is currently a sign for the market and the applicant is requesting an additional sign. The sign would need to be erected ten feet back instead of the mandated fifty feet back. Mr. Chester also stated the necessity of the sign because parking is currently used by Boston Market customers and Boston Market does not own the parking lot. The sign is twelve feet and only the letters will be illuminated. Mr. Chester indicated that this was a very commercial area so that it should not have an impact on the area. Mr. Weprin stated that he was troubled with the sign and asked if there are any other ways to deal with the parking issue. Mr. Mgrditchian asked
if another type of posting could show that the parking is for the applicant’s establishment. He indicated that the Board has not approved many signs in the past and stated that recently, sign variances had been denied. Mr. Weprin asked if the applicant could put up a temporary sign when they first open. Mr. Winter stated the applicant could in order to advertise. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked about a sign on the building itself. Mr. Winter indicated that the applicant would have to come before the Board again. Mr. Chester asked about a smaller sign and showed a second picture. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked about putting a sign in the rear of the parking lot or on the façade. She suggested the applicant speak with Mr. Winter to find alternative solutions. Mr. Weprin stated that once the store is open, the parking issue may change. Mr. Salzillo, the applicant, indicated that parking will continue to be a
problem and the sign would help eliminate that problem. Acting Chairperson Kramer stated that because the establishment is not yet open, there are parking issues now. Once the applicant opens the market, the lot will be filled with Harvest Market cars (shoppers). She indicated that if the applicant wanted the Board to consider this variance, the Board will, but it might not be approved, or the applicant can speak with Mr. Winter to come up with a reasonable solution. Mr. Weprin indicated that a zoning compliant code is his desire. Mr. Chester stated that the applicant has put a lot of money into this project. Mr. Mgrditchian indicated that the Board was sympathetic, but it has set precedent. Acting Chairperson Kramer indicated that the applicant has three choices: 1) leave application as is; 2) discuss with the Building Department how to comply; 3) come up with an alternative and come before the Board again. The applicant requested an
adjournment.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone else in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.
A motion to adjourn the public hearing until July 22, 2009 was made by Mr. Weprin, seconded by Mr. Sullivan.
10. Adjourned Application #13A-2009, MICHAEL COTTER
Michael Cotter appeared. He indicated that he purchased the legal two-family home in 2008 and converted the first floor to a dental office. Mr. Cotter stated that the issue was with the second floor. He was informed by the Building Department and the Planning Board that he needed two parking spaces to conform. At the last ZBA meeting the Board had an issue with the language of the lease. Mr. Cotter stated that a new lease had been written up.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if the Board had any questions. None did.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
11. Adjourned Application #1A-2008, JOSEPH GERMANO
Joseph Germano appeared. Mr. Weprin indicated that he is Mr. Germano’s neighbor, but not of the affected property. Mr. Germano indicated that he was applying for a fence variance to legalize a six foot fence. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if the Board had any questions for the applicant. None did.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application. Norm Rosenblum addressed the Board. He indicated that he was very much in favor of this application. He stated that at least fifty percent of the fences in Mamaroneck are six feet. He also said that the code should be changed to six feet.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Sullivan.
12. BENMAR PROPERTIES, LLC.
Acting Chairperson Kramer indicated that the Board would be going into executive session to discuss Benmar Properties, LLC.
A motion to go into executive session was made by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Mgrditchian.
At 8:36 p.m., the Board went into executive session.
At 8:49 p.m., the Board came back from executive session.
Acting Chairperson Kramer stated that the Supreme Court had ordered the Village of Mamaroneck to make a SEQRA determination. Mr. Silverberg stated that in accordance with the decision of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court in the Matter of Lucas v. Village of Mamaroneck, with respect to a building permit issued to Benmar Properties LLC, the Zoning Board of Appeals will make a threshold determination under SEQRA as to whether the issuance of the building permit is a Type I, Type II or Unlisted Action within the meaning of the regulations implementing the State Environmental Quality Review Act. Mr. Silverberg indicated that this was not necessarily subject to a public hearing or comment. The Board will make a decision based on material it has in front of it and then make a
determination. Acting Chairperson Kramer stated that the Board would be taking comments with some provisions:
1) The only subject for discussion is whether this is a Type I, II or Unlisted Action
2) Comments will be limited to three minutes per person
3) One chance to speak (be short, clear and cogent)
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked the Building Inspector what his opinion was. Mr. Winter indicated that his initial reaction would be a Type II action as it is a one or two-family home on an approved lot.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this matter.
Mr. Falk approached the Board. He indicated that he feels there are matters of jurisdiction relating to this issue that he would like to discuss. He lives across the street from the property in question and he opposes this application. Further, he hopes the Board will act appropriately. He stated that the Board does not have the authority to act as lead agency, there is no application in front of the Board currently, the Board would essentially be approving nothing and the Board is taking a clear risk typing this issue. Mr. Falk also stated that SEQRA prohibits a project from being segmented or reviewed in smaller increments to avoid threshold distinctions in law. He also indicated that Benmar believes its action is Type II and can only claim its action is Type II by pretending that the
creation of a new lot was not integral to its project. Mr. Falk also stated that it did not matter how or when Benmar’s new lot was approved or whether or not it is called a subdivision for the purposes of SEQRA. All that matters is that 609 Brook Street was not approved at the outset of the project. There were not two approved lots that were sold. There was only one.
Discussion arose regarding the litigation and Acting Chairperson Kramer asked Mr. Falk to speak to the issue of SEQRA as opposed to the litigation. Mr. Falk stated that SEQRA should be looked at as a whole instead of in pieces. He urged the Board to please proceed with caution and to see what the Lucas III decision is.
Nora Lucas approached the Board and stated that the Board does not have an application in front of them. The Appellate asked for a decision on Permit #2300. She indicated that until Benmar makes an application, the Board can’t type it. Ms. Lucas stated that the Board needed to look at July 2007 in making a determination. She said SEQRA is about the whole action and not pieces. Benmar’s project was to obtain a lot to build 603 Beach Street and that the project is the creation of a new lot for a new house.
Mr. Salanitro, of Benmar Properties, LLC. approached the Board. He stated that it is Mr. Winter’s determination under SEQRA that is being looked at tonight. He stated that he hopes the Board will follow the Building Inspector’s findings. He stated that the lot is a legally conforming lot, the Board members voted to approve the original application and the building permit was issued on a conforming lot. He indicated that the determination should be a Type II. The issuance of the building permit speaks for itself. He stated that this is not, nor was it ever, a sub-division; it was an apportionment.
Sue McCrory approached the Board. She stated that the Village does need to do SEQRA, but not now because there is pending litigation. She indicated that she disagrees with Mr. Winter’s Type II determination because there were two lots when the property was purchased and now there are three lots. She considers this a new house on a new lot, so it should not be a Type II. She cautioned the Board that there might be more litigation depending on the Board’s determination.
John Farrell approached the Board and stated that he wanted to talk about the property, not SEQRA. Acting Chairperson Kramer restated the rules for the public hearing. Mr. Farrell voiced his objections to the proceeding and then sat down.
Mark Castello, a member of Benmar Properties, LLC, approached the Board and requested that Chairman Neuringer recuse himself from this matter because Chairman Neuringer has done professional work with Sue McCrory.
Acting Chairperson Kramer indicated that the Board would proceed with the rest of the public hearing.
13. Application #17A-2009, KEVIN LAFOLLETT
Dan Natchez appeared on behalf of the applicant. He indicated that the applicant is requesting a variance in the rear yard setback. The applicant presently has an upper and lower level deck. The deck extends further than the applicants want. Mr. Natchez stated that the applicants have gone to all neighbors and they have no issue with the applicant’s request. Currently, the deck is at 10.4 feet and the applicant is looking for a reduction of 4.4 feet. Mr. Natchez indicated that there was a C of O when the house was purchased. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if the applicant was tearing down one area and building onto another area. Mr. Natchez stated that that was correct. Mr. Mgrditchian asked that the current setback is 14.7 feet and that 20.6 feet was proposed;
reducing to a more conforming setback. Mr. and Mrs. LaFollett indicated in the affirmative. Greg DeAngeles, a neighbor, stated that he had seen the drawings and supports the applicants’ request. He indicated that the stream creates a natural buffer. He also stated that the application is reasonable and made sense.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone in the audience wished to address the Board regarding this application. None did.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Weprin, seconded by Mr. Mgrditchian.
14. Application #18A-2009, JOSEPH CASTELLANI
Joseph Castellani appeared before the Board. He indicated that he is requesting to legalize a six foot fence where five feet is the maximum height allowed. Mr. Weprin asked why he wanted to increase the height. Mr. Castellani stated that he has a thruway running behind his home which creates noise and people throw trash from the thruway which accumulates on his property. He would like the higher fence to solve these issues.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone would like to approach the Board.
Norm Rosenblum approached the Board and stated that it was time to change the law and that he supported this application.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
15. Application #20A-2009, BLAKE ESTES
Mike Betcher appeared on behalf of the applicant. He indicated that the applicant wants to extend and add on to a deck that currently exists. There is a deck on the side and rear of the house. He stated that there is no real connection to the yard from the house. The applicant needs a deck that can make the yard accessible as there is a lot of unusable space currently. Mr. Betcher indicated that both decks need to be renovated because of rotting and that the railings are not up to code. He stated that since the deck is ten feet above the ground, it does not impact the yard or encroach on setback. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if the neighbor’s house was close to the property line and Mr. Betcher answered no and stated that the house complies with setback requirements.
Mr. Mgrditchian asked what the total square footage of the existing and new decks was. Mr. Betcher answered 560 square feet. The new deck would be approximately 300 square feet and the existing is 260 square feet. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked how deep or wide the deck was. Mr. Betcher indicated that the deck was nine feet wide and that only three posts would be touching the ground.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone would like to approach the Board. None did.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Sullivan.
16. Application #21A-2009, MARLON PHILOSSOP
Paul Noto, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant. He stated that Mr. Philossop’s name should have been on the Public Hearing Notice. He indicated that the property is currently abandoned. The applicant was up before the Planning Board for the 18-unit condominium that never went through. He indicated that the applicant is looking to renovate and restore the units, restore the commercial building move his business back to the Village. Mr. Noto stated that the business would be in the tavern. He indicated that the applicant has met twice with the Planning Board and that the Planning Board will be issuing a negative declaration at their next meeting. Mr. Noto stated that the applicant needs variances on setback for parking, front yard setback and 17 spaces where 8 are
provided. Mr. Noto presented a letter from neighbors approving of the project. He indicated that this application does not exacerbate any pre-existing conformities and he believes the upgrade of landscaping will be an improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if the proposed use of commercial is single-use tenant and Mr. Noto answered in the affirmative and that this would be a martial arts program only. Mr. Mgrditchian indicated that the variances were not substantial, but parking would be a problem if there were more tenant use. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if the applicant would be against the Board determining one tenant use only. Mr. Noto indicated that he would not be comfortable with that. Mr. Silverberg interjected by stating that the Board could limit scope to single use and approve the application and that the applicant can then come back to the Board later for additional parking. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if the
prior use was conforming and Mr. Noto answered in the affirmative. Discussion arose regarding the business bringing more drivers to the area and the impact on traffic and parking. Marlon Philossop stated that it would bring more drivers, but he likes the location because it is close to the elementary and high school. He indicated that he is looking to expand his youth program. He indicated that he wants to hold classes for students during the day and adults in the evening. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if any of the eight parking spaces would be allocated to residents. Mr. Noto answered no, but indicated that residents would park in the evening and go to work during the day. Then spaces would be available for the martial arts students. Mr. Noto also stated that parents would only be picking up and dropping off students, not parking. Mr. Noto indicated that the applicant was not changing the foot print of the building.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if the applicant looked into parking nearby, for leasing. Mr. Noto answered that the first approach was getting the variance and he doesn’t feel there is a parking issue. Acting Chairperson Kramer stated that there is a difference in use for a tavern versus a martial arts establishment. Mr. Noto answered that the students will be attending programs after school and that after 3:00 p.m. there is plenty of spaces for the adult students. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if there would be weekend classes and Mr. Noto answered in the affirmative. Acting Chairperson Kramer indicated that parking was an issue when she made a site visit and discussion arose regarding the time Acting Chairperson Kramer made her site visit. Mr. Philossop stated that he would like to come back to the Village because many of the students he currently has still live in Mamaroneck. Greg DeAngeles, the architect for the project,
stated that the apartments required 44 parking spaces at that time, but the martial arts studio requires less. Acting Chairperson Kramer stated that the traffic commission indicated that there were parking issues. Mr. DeAngeles stated that moving the entrance so that the entrance is within the C-1 district will help. The new entrance will be closer to Mamaroneck Avenue and away from the residential area. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked about landscaping. Mr. DeAngeles indicated that shrubbery would be planted for buffer.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone would like to approach the Board. None did.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
17. Application #25A-2009, PARKVIEW STATION, LLC
John Verni, Principal Parkview Station, LLC and Chris Verni appeared. John Verni stated that he had been before the Board last year. He also indicated that he has been before various Boards such as the Board of Trustees and the Planning Board. He stated that he acquired property from a Metro North RFP. He purchased the lot that was offered by Metro North. He indicated that the land has no street frontage. He also stated that he was doing restoration of the existing building. He indicated that parking is always an issue and tenants will have to go before the Board for parking. He stated that the first floor of the building will be for retail (restaurant, market, dry cleaning, gift shop, flower shop, etc.) and the second floor would be utilized as offices. Mr.
Mgrditchian asked who and how would this establishment service. John Verni indicated that the establishment would serve customers all day. Mr. Mgrditchian asked what the square footage of the building was and John Verni indicated 3300 square feet. John Verni stated that he would like to get the project moving forward and that he has been before the Boards in the past nine months. John Verni indicated that he had acquired the building and sidewalk which has no frontage. The building sits on an easement and he has an easement agreement. He also indicated that there is no side yard setback, so the building goes right up to the sidewalk. He also stated that there are no residents in this area. He stated that he owns the building and sidewalk; it is not leased and that the building is situated in an R-20 District, but there are no residents. He also stated FAR requirements and on-site parking. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if anything
had changed since he came before the Board the first time and John Verni answered that nothing had changed.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone would like to approach the Board.
Nora Lucas approached the Board. She stated that it was unlikely the MTA will renovate the building because the MTA wants to keep their parking. She stated that the MTA has done nothing in the past to improve the building. Ms. Lucas indicated that she supports this application because it will be beneficial to the area.
Mr. Weprin asked if the application wasn’t approved, what else would be done with the building. John Verni answered that there are many restrictions relating to historical preservation. Acting Chairperson Kramer asked about deed restrictions in the deed and John Verni indicated that there were deed restrictions. He stated that he had a 99 year lease agreement for 11 spaces with the MTA. Mr. Weprin asked how he would stop individuals from parking in those spaces, such as commuters. Chris Verni stated that signs would be displayed and the MTA would patrol the area. Mr. Mgrditchian asked if the MTA was willing to sell anymore spaces. John Verni indicated not as of now and that tenants would have to negotiate with the MTA on more parking. Chris Verni indicated that the
tenants will have access to all of the parking in the evenings and that this is a good example of shared parking.
Acting Chairperson Kramer asked if anyone else would like to approach the Board. None did.
A motion to close the public hearing was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
APPLICATIONS CLOSED
- 1. Adjourned Application #11A-2009 FIRST CHURCH OF CHRISTIAN SCIENCE
The Board discussed the merits of the application.
If attendance at the church property on more than four occasions over the period of a year exceeds available parking at the parking lot, the church will be required to provide additional parking or return to this Board to present a plan for dealing with overflow parking.
A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
Ayes: Kramer, Mgrditchian, Sullivan, Weprin
Nays: None
Absent: Neuringer
2. BENMAR PROPERTIES, LLC
The Board discussed SEQRA determination.
On motion of Mr. Weprin, and seconded by Mr. Mgrditchian:
BE IT RESOLVED, pursuant to the direction of the Appellate Division of the State Supreme Court that such determination be made, this Board hereby declares itself lead agency pursuant to SEQRA and finds the within application is a Type II action under SEQRA requiring no further action under SEQRA.
Ayes: Mgrditchian, Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin
Nays: None
Absent: Neuringer
3. Application #8SP-2009, SIXTIES ENTERPRISES, INC.
The Board discussed the merits of the application.
That the special permit granted herein shall be valid for an initial probationary period of three (3) years.
A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
Ayes: Kramer, Mgrditchian, Sullivan, Weprin
Nays: None
Absent: Neuringer
4. Application #8SP-1995, CAFÉ MOZART
The Board discussed the merits of the application.
The renewal of the special permit is without a term limit.
A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Weprin for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Mgrditchian.
Ayes: Kramer, Mgrditchian, Sullivan, Weprin
Nays: None
Absent: Neuringer
5. Application #1SP-1996, PICCOLO MULINO, INC.
The Board discussed the merits of the application.
The renewal of the special permit is without a term limit.
A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
Ayes: Kramer, Mgrditchian, Sullivan, Weprin
Nays: None
Absent: Neuringer
6. Application #1SP-2000, JUST MEZE, INC.
The Board discussed the merits of the application.
The renewal of the special permit is without a term limit.
A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Sullivan.
Ayes: Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin, Mgrditchian
Nays: None
Abstain: Neuringer
7. Adjourned Application #13A-2009, MICHAEL COTTER
The Board discussed the merits of the application.
A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Weprin for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Mgrditchian.
Ayes: Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin, Mgrditchian
Nays: None
Abstain: Neuringer
8. Adjourned Application #1A-2008, JOSEPH GERMANO
The Board discussed the merits of the application.
A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
Ayes: Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin, Mgrditchian
Nays: None
Abstain: Neuringer
9. Application #17A-2009, KEVIN LAFOLLETT
The Board discussed the merits of the application.
A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
Ayes: Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin, Mgrditchian
Nays: None
Abstain: Neuringer
10. Application #18A-2009, JOSEPH CASTELLANI
The Board discussed the merits of the application.
A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
Ayes: Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin, Mgrditchian
Nays: None
Abstain: Neuringer
11. Application #20A-2009, BLAKE ESTES
The Board discussed the merits of the application.
A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Weprin for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Mgrditchian.
Ayes: Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin, Mgrditchian
Nays: None
Abstain: Neuringer
12. Application #25A-2009, PARKVIEW STATION, LLC
The Board discussed the merits of the application.
The applicant will obtain parking permits for all office employees.
A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Mgrditchian for the reasons stated on the record and recorded in the verbatim transcript, seconded by Mr. Sullivan.
Ayes: Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin, Mgrditchian
Nays: None
Abstain: Neuringer
MINUTES
A motion to approve the minutes of April 2, 2009 was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
Ayes: Mgrditchian, Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin
Nays: None
Absent: Neuringer
A motion to approve the minutes of May 7, 2009 was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Weprin.
Ayes: Mgrditchian, Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin
Nays: None
Absent: Neuringer
Mr. Farrell approached the Board to discuss his displeasure with Benmar Property, LLC. and how the situation was handled by the Board.
ADJOURN
A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mr. Mgrditchian, seconded by Mr. Sullivan.
Ayes: Mgrditchian, Kramer, Sullivan, Weprin
Nays: None
Absent: Neuringer
On motion duly made and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
GEORGE MGRDITCHIAN
Secretary
Prepared by:
Ann P. Powers
| 
