|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Minutes, Zoning Board of Appeals, January 10, 2006STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER TOWN OF EASTCHESTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
MINUTES OF THE EASTCHESTER ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X
HELD AT: Eastchester Town Hall 40 Mill Road Eastchester, New York 10709 January 10, 2006 7:30 p.m.
B E F O R E:
LOUIS SATRIALE, Chairman MICHAEL CAHALIN, Member PAUL CUBITA, Member FRED SALANITRO, Member PETER BORDUCCI, Member
P R E S E N T:
LOUIS REDA, Deputy Town Attorney MARGARET UHLE, Director of Planning JAY KING, Building Inspector
DINA M. MORGAN, REPORTER 43 CENTRAL DRIVE BRONXVILLE, NEW YORK 10708 (914) 469-6353 THE CHAIRMAN: I would like to welcome everybody to the January 10th, 2006 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. As is our tradition we always start with the Pledge of Allegiance. Would everybody please stand. (Whereupon the Pledge of Allegiance was said.). THE CHAIRMAN: Before we begin tonight, a few items. For long time fans of the Zoning Board, you'll notice that to my left we have a new member. His name is Peter Borducci. Mr. Borducci was appointed by the Town Board last month -- actually not last month, the first meeting in January to serve a five year term on this Board. Mr. Borducci is formally a resident of Tuckahoe, served on that Zoning Board of Appeals for a period of time, has recently moved to the town of Eastchester. I had an extended conversation with him yesterday to introduce him to the Board. He strikes me as extremely enthusiastic, energetic and I certainly look forward to serving with him on the Board. His background is in electrical engineering. He also is involved in a business that is involved with construction. So, I think he will bring to the Board a perspective that most of the members, if not all of the members, don't have and I think would be very beneficial to the Board. So, I would like to officially welcome Peter Borducci to the Board, and as I said, and I'm sure the other members all look forward to serving with you and we appreciate you volunteering to serve the next five years with [you say us. So, welcome. MR. BORDUCCI: Thank you, Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: You're very welcome. Also, one other issue before we move on. I would be remiss if I didn't recognize the person that Mr. Borducci replaced. He replaced Mary Ann Michels, who anybody who has watched this Board during the past five years would know she was an extremely dedicated and conscientious member of the Board. She was one of the nicest people you'll ever meet for those who have had the privilege of meeting her. She also offered a perspective that was different and refreshing as compared to the other members and she'll certainly be missed. She was always ready to help. She would tackle even the most difficult Resolution without hesitation and I and I'm sure the rest of the Board members are sad to see her go. Unfortunately, I do have to add that Ms. Michels' official notification that she would not be remaining on the Board came from actually the circumstance of watching the Town Board meeting last week, which is a bit distressing. I recognize that everybody thinks that they're very busy in everything they do, but the fact that the Supervisor or someone at his direction did not have the common decency and courtesy to call Ms. Michels and tell her after five years of dedicated service that she was [know no longer on the Board I find inexcusable and disgraceful. Hopefully that won't be repeated in the future. MR. REDA: Mr. Satriale, if I could respond to that so I could shed some light on the issue. From my understanding based on my conversations with people in the Supervisor's office, she was called prior to the holidays. I was under the impression that she did not call back. I know that there was some conversation between her and the supervisor on their message machines, they did not actually speak. While I do understand your concern and your viewpoints, the town does not agree with that. We do appreciate her service, but just so it's clear she was given a phone call and they did not speak. Unfortunately, that happened prior to the Town Board meeting and that's why Mr. Borducci was appointed. I understand your views and totally respect them, but I think there's a little bit of a viewpoint from the Supervisor's position. THE CHAIRMAN: This is probably not the forum to have a debate on this. MR. REDA: I don't think it is, but I just wanted to make it clear. THE CHAIRMAN: I'm glad you said what you said, but let me just say that what I said was based on a telephone conversation I had with Ms. Michels. I have no doubt that the conversation I had with her in which she explained to me what transpired was accurately stated by her. The truth of the matter is she received a phone call from the Supervisor on her answering machine the Friday before New Years. The message didn't indicate why he wanted to speak with her. She called back the same day, left her home phone number, her cell number and indicated she would be around the entire holiday weekend. [Up you did until Friday and I believe through today that call still has not been returned. So, that's my understanding of what happened. I believe that's completely accurate and I'll reiterate that the way that went down is disgraceful. If the Supervisor or someone at his direction does not have a minute and a half to make a phone call and to make sure there's a connection with a volunteer who served the town for five years, then I suggest town hall re-examine their priorities. MR. REDA: We have a busy meeting and I agree this is not the proper forum, but I think some of the comments you made are not appropriate, in all due respect to you, and the fact of the matter is Ms. Michels did serve for five years and we all appreciate that, but whatever transpired between her and the Supervisor should be worked out between her and the Supervisor not before the meeting that's scheduled to take place. THE CHAIRMAN: We can disagree whether my comments are appropriate, the point that I'm trying to make is that they're accurate. MR. REDA: Based on your conversation with her. THE CHAIRMAN: If there's a different perspective, I would love to hear it because I'm not aware of one. It is what it is. The Town Board, don't get me wrong, the Town Board has every right to appoint whoever they want to this Board and they've exercised that many times in the past, I'm not saying they don't have a [right write to do that. What I'm saying is for a volunteer not to receive the courtesy of a phone call and just happened to be watching a Town Board meeting to find out that [they're there their not on the Board anymore after five years is inappropriate. I'll leave it at that. I stand by my description of what happened and I know it's accurate because it came directly from Ms. Michels. Anything else from anybody else before we move on? (No comments.). THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. What we normally do at the beginning of a meeting is run through the agenda. We have a fair number of people here tonight, there's probably a fair number of people watching on television, we call each item that's on the agenda. If for any reason that agenda item is not going to [procedure proceed tonight, please let us know now so that the people that are here don't have to stay the rest of the night and the people at home don't have to continue watching if they chose not to do so. So, I'll run through the agenda quickly. The first item under old business is 05-86, Lou's Luncheonette. Mr. Allocco is [hear here and you're prepared to [procedure proceed? MR. ALLOCCO: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Second item is 05-95, 46 Parkway Circle. Is somebody [hear here for that application? MR. LUTZENBERGER: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Are you the attorney that we received correspondence from? MR. LUTZENBERGER: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: And you're ready to [procedure proceed tonight? MR. LUTZENBERGER: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Third item under old business is New Cingular Wireless. Is somebody [hear here? Yes. That's the Cuddy & Feder Firm, correct? MS. CIOCI: Correct. THE CHAIRMAN: And you're ready to [procedure proceed? MS. CIOCI: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: First item under new business is 137 Hillside Avenue. Is somebody here to proceed on that? Mr. Cotugno. You're ready to go? MR. COTUGNO: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Next item is 105 Clarence Road. Is somebody here to proceed on that? Mr. Cotugno again. And you're ready to [procedure proceed? MR. COTUGNO: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Next one is 05-101, 25 Soundview Drive. Mr. Debitetto is here. Are you ready to [procedure proceed? He said yes. Next to last item, 2 Knollwood Road. Is somebody [hear here on that? Another Mr. Cotugno for the hat trick. You're ready to [procedure proceed on that? MR. COTUGNO: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Final item tonight is 05-107, 113 White Road. Is somebody [hear here on that? We have Mr. Allocco and Mr. Cotugno tag team on that and you're ready to [procedure proceed on that? MR. COTUGNO: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: So, the agenda is, as I described, all the items are going to [procedure proceed tonight and some if we're prepared [together to go to resolution on them we will. If not, they will be held until next month. First item is Lou's Luncheonette, 33 Mill Road. Mr. Allocco, it's all yours. MR. ALLOCCO: Good evening, members of the Board. For the record, my name is Chris Allocco. My office is at 8 Roy Place [hear here in Eastchester. I welcome Mr. Borducci. I sat next to Ms. Michels for a few years myself and we, apart from the inevitable banter, during the meetings there was a lot of conversations, she takes her position very seriously and I do miss her even coming up here as an applicant. Mr. Borducci, welcome. We're [hear here today and the Board actually had heard this application a little bit before I came on board regarding Lou's Luncheonette. It's slated to be occupying 33 Mill Road. Can you hear me with this? THE CHAIRMAN: We can [hear here you. Can the audience hear him? Everybody seems to say they can [hear here you . MR. ALLOCCO: It's slated to occupy a vacant storefront at 33 Mill Road. What we're proposing to do is open up a luncheonette, which falls under the category of restaurant under our zoning code, which is a permitted use but [its the it's a special permit use which is why the Zoning Board as lead agency will have to rule on both the special permit and the parking variance which goes with that and I'll go into the background just a little bit in a minute. We're [hear here for two reasons today. We're [hear here for a special permit and we're [hear here for an area variance for parking. The Board did hear this application I believe in November, at which point it was referred to the Planning Board for some guidance I guess on some of the restaurant requirements that go part and parcel to the special permit that you'll be asked to issue. The Planning Board did have some comments which I'm sure have been communicated to you at this point. We attempted to address them with some additional plans, which is actually the second page, which I'll show you in a little bit, of the [sight site cite plan. Specifically the Planning Board asked to see a more scaled site plan, which I think we submitted something that was a little bit too small to be usable to them, and we also were asked to provide a roof plan, which should be in [you're your packages as well, particularly to show the positioning of the ventilation equipment that would be added to the roof at that location as a part of opening up a restaurant. I guess what I'll start with we'll talk about the special permit first. I'll just take you through each argument. I don't want to repeat what's in my written material, but I also know there may be some questions and I didn't want to be too brief on the answers. The long and the short of it, this is a retail business district. [They're there their are several diverse uses on this very same storefront. There's a dry cleaner next door, a bank, a nail place, a laundromat, a flower shop and a shoe repair shop. So, it's pretty diverse and that's going to come into play later when we talk about the use of this site vis-a-vis some of the other ones. The first issue, again this is a restaurant, which this use is proposed to be a restaurant, [they're there their is some uniqueness in the fact that it's intended to be a luncheonette much in the same light as you may recall years ago the Short Stop which the Cessarinis operated across the street. It's meant to draw walk-in traffic. [Its the it's not meant to draw people driving there. [They're there their are plenty of places around that have parking that you could sit for a longer time. This is intended to be [mother more of what I'll call a hit and run type of thing, you get a quick bite and you leave. It's meant to draw almost exclusively walk-in traffic and we'll explain to you how that's going to play out. It is on a commercial street. [They're there their are other eating establishments up and down Mill Road, some with parking on the south side of the street, that would be the shopping center side and the town hall side, and the ones of course on the north side of the street do not have any on [sight site cite parking with the exception of the little restaurant next to the real estate office next to the haircutter. So, for the most part the street parking is relied upon by the vendors in that neighborhood. We do have one parking space that's been made available to [you say us in the back. Basically the rear parking is made available for the tenants to park their own vehicles. So, Mr. Valerioti and his operating of the [sight site cite will not be using up street parking himself. Also, as came [up you did during the last meeting, we'll be also using the rear of the place for both deliveries and for waste and refuse, the storage which will be picked up according to town requirements. So, we'll be putting that out of the public view. The yard is screened from the Oakridge Place co-op by some rather high arborvitae that are maintained [buy by the Oakridge family and having lived there myself I'm aware of that and familiar with the view. So, [they're there their are some fair sized arborvitae there and we know how arborvitae gets over the years, it could get rather tall over the years and provide an increasing screen as time goes on. In terms of the special permit, as I said, the location and size of the unit it's a nine hundred square foot storefront. I would suggest from looking at the plans at least half of that is going to be with production and bathrooms and that sort of thing so you really have only a little less than half that's actually available for customer seating. Of course being a restaurant we're painting the requirements with those of a restaurant that's open for three meals a day, a diner and anything else and the square footage requirement for nine hundred square feet does require twelve spaces. So, we're going to attempt to project to you that [they're there their is enough parking for the way we're planning on operating the restaurant. The Planning Board did specifically in its Resolution they wanted to limit us formally to breakfast and lunch. [They're there their will be no dinner. Mr. Valerioti will be running the shop himself and his son will be in [they're there their, so [its the it's really going to be a small operation. He's going to be opening up at five in the morning to begin with the preparation and everything. I don't suspect that he's going to want to stay there much past two or three o'clock when the lunch crowd is gone. That plays into the fact that anybody who's traveled on Mill Road traffic starts to pick up around three o'clock because you've got the schools letting out and it kind of increases during rush our when you're literally sitting there watching lights turn. But earlier in the day you could usually move through pretty easily and that's what we're trying to focus our use on. We're going to try and stay away from the worst usage time by being a breakfast and lunch establishment. In terms of objections to nearby property, we're going to have state of the art ventilation on this. [Its the it's going to emit, according to the specs, zero decibels. So, the ventilation system will emit no sound that certainly will not be discernible forty or fifty feet to the nearest point of the Oakridge Place co-op. So, [its the it's going to be a quiet operation. It's anticipated also under the specification that may be in [you're your package from the first meeting, we submitted them to the Planning Board because they didn't have them, that [they're there their will be somewhere on the order ninety-nine plus percent of the particulate will be caught by the filtration system so it's intended such that you wouldn't know there was a food establishment. Mr. Valerioti's son and I both lived in that building, we don't want to upset our neighbors because we are in town nearby and that was something that we were concerned about when the Planning Board mentioned it. Now, there's a few different requirements that go with this particular special permit use. What I just attempted to address a minute ago were the general special permit use requirements. Now there's a bunch that go that just line up against a restaurant and again with the intent that these are for all restaurants we're trying to sort of position it so it reflects the kind of operation that we would hope to have. Most first and foremost is parking and we're clearly going to spend some time on that. The special permit requirements the zoning code requires we have adequate off street parking. [They're there their is no off street parking. No use that would go into this particular location would have adequate off street parking. It was just the way the building was built however many years ago. The important thing is to try to find a use that's more consistent with the plan for that retail business district that does not place a strain on parking, which we're hoping we're doing. Part B just says parking shall be subject to the vehicle and traffic laws. It goes without saying. If our people park at the meters, they've got to put money in them or they're going to get a ticket. They're probably looking that we don't make any dangerous U-turns to get in [they're there their and because [its the it's all on street we would not be encouraging that type of activity. Clearly they're going to pull up to a meter, that's what we would anticipate, or as I said we think that more than half of our traffic is going to come from the town hall area, the Oakridge Place area and that sort of thing. Adequate roads for ingress and egress. We're on a county road [right write now. Certainly there's no ingress or egress to the site, but clearly it's a well traveled road and it's maintained [buy by the county. I'm speaking about Mill Road. Oakridge Place gets a fair amount of traffic because of the library there. These businesses all seem to swing into use a little bit later in the day than we're going to. In terms of loading area, this is I think one of the reasons we're before you, we're going to take deliveries from a panel van. It's really going to come through something along the line of an SUV or a minivan. He is going to take very minimal deliveries. There's no storage on the premises, so the anticipation is that more of the perishables will be coming everyday or so, every couple of days. Plus, Mr. Valerioti himself will be running over to get some supplies over at the Restaurant Depo in Mount Vernon, which is a very large supplier in the area of some of the sundries he might need and have a little bit more of a shelf life. So, [they're there their will be no big trucks. We've had issues with some applications here [where wear you see a fifty-three foot trailer coming in and dropping stuff off. That's not going to happen [hear here. One thing the Planning Board did ask us about was to position those deliveries to be a minimal impact to the Oakridge Place people and to other neighbors as well. Since we're the first tenant to open up there, it's expected that our deliveries will be before seven o'clock in the morning and again [its the it's not a big truck, you're not going to hear a significant amount of back up lights or tones that you normally hear on a commercial vehicle. The deliveries may not even be from a commercial vehicle for all we [know no. But we're taking our deliveries in that parking lot before the other shops have opened so [its the it's not going to cause any kind of a traffic jamb or parking situation with respect to the tenants. We're not applying for a cabaret license, so we can kind of go by that requirement. We won't be applying for a liquor license either and there will not be any delivery or drive-thru windows. This is meant to be a walk in -- maybe a walk in window, but we're not really focusing on driving here. I stated it several times at the Planning Board meeting, I think [its the it's important to keep this operation into perspective. We're subject to the same requirements as Edmundo's or those restaurants in town, but we're clearly minimizing this operation to minimize the impact on the community. In terms of receptacles, one thing we were asked [buy by the Planning Board to do was show where we were going to have that and you'll see on the second [paying page of the plan where we're going to have our container, which will be a sealed container and I think daily is required for removal of that so that will be emptied daily. As to within the interior of the establishment, all the receptacles will be, as in any other luncheonette type place, [they're there their will be no garbage stored out in front where the customers can see it because there's very little room out [they're there their to start with. Most of the room is going to be for preparation and that sort of thing. The bulk waste disposal is every twenty-four hours and clearly we intend to comply with that. I put that into my write up because that's our intent to do that. Whatever the requirements are for any food establishment we have to follow and we understand that. In terms of good order and disorderly premises, we don't expect that the morning crowd is going to be getting too rowdy, but we will not be having amplified speaking devices so we can't broadcast to them. This is not going to be where we're calling people for tables, and given the proximity to the police department I don't think we're going to draw too much of a rowdy crowd either because they're right across the street. [They're there their will be screening. The Planning Board asked that we provide some screening both on the roof, which is something we had not put in our original submission, and [they're there their is screening from the parking lot between that and the residential area. Finally, we're not making any modifications to the [sight site cite. Everything is totally interior and contained within that storefront. If some day we want to put a sign on the place, we have to come back and get the appropriate approvals. We're not looking to that [right write now. And finally, the approving agency, as you are, has the ability to regulate hours of operation. The Planning Board has already in it's own way attempted to do that by limiting us to breakfast and lunch, which again has always been our intent. We didn't want to pin a time down because Mr. Valerioti may be doing clean [up you did and we don't [know no what time his last customer is going to leave, but clearly we're not going to start serving dinner. So, he is going to want to get home by two, three o'clock in the afternoon as it is. If the Board feels there's a need to actually pin down a time, the intent again the rush is breakfast and it's going to kind of tailor off after that. That would be the specific tests that are in the zoning code with respect to a special permit for a restaurant. Do you want me to just knock out the variance or stop right now and you ask some questions? THE CHAIRMAN: Unless you feel the need [together to go through that . MR. ALLOCCO: You want me to just make my arguments from the written part of the record so I don't have to read that. I appreciate that, that's fine. My voice is already going and I have to come back [hear here. THE CHAIRMAN: We all have that and once we get to the question part there may be specific questions addressed to you. We're back to the Board. We had this case back in it must have been September, October time frame. It was recommended that it be reviewed [buy by the Planning Board, which it has been. We all received the minutes of the Planning Board meeting where this application was discussed. I think it was very beneficially. We sent it to the Planning Board. They did highlight a number of issues that were of [concern certain to [you say us and they're [mother more of the experts on a lot of those issues so we have all that. We have the benefit of what's happened to this point. The public hearing still should be open from where we left off, so before we go to the public we'll do what we normally do, we're back to the Board before we go to the public and then we'll come back to the Board after the public to see if the Board has any questions, comments or thoughts at this point. Mr. Cahalin? MR. CAHALIN: I see that they suggested limiting the hours of operation and Mr. Allocco alludes to the fact that although the business won't be open until six there is some preparation involved probably four thirty, five o'clock in the morning to get ready for breakfast. They didn't address the fact where the staff is going to be and how many people are going to be employed here. I know this gentleman is going to walk to work . MR. ALLOCCO: He is the short order cook. He will be able to tell you exactly what he is going to have. MR. CAHALIN: I'm just curious, how many employees are you going to have and how is that going to impact --. MR. VALERIOTI: Approximately five . MR. ALLOCCO: At one time? MR. VALERIOTI: Five people. Myself, I'll be doing most of the cooking, preparation will be done some of it in the morning, some of it after closing time at four. MR. CAHALIN: My question is, is it adequate if we're going to limit the hours do we want to think about saying five to four so the neighbors don't get --. MS. UHLE: What the Planning Board had discussed was, and I think what was represented at the Planning Board meeting, was that the hours for public use would be limited to between six and four with the understanding if he wanted to close earlier or open later that would be permissible, but that you would not be open to the public any earlier than six or any later than four. However, if you needed to work within [you're your own store, that that would be permissible. But I definitely think that the hours should be set, and if say at some point you do decide to serve dinner, then that would be considered an amendment to this special permit approval and you would have to come back because that creates different circumstances, etcetera. So, you could tell what those hours are, but previously it was represented between six and four o'clock. THE CHAIRMAN: Okay, maybe that will be a way we could deal with it is having the hours set for a time it's open to the public and maybe that will address it. MR. CAHALIN: That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Borducci, anything on your maiden application? MR. BORDUCCI: Well, I've attempted to make myself as familiar as possible with the background for this presentation, so at this point I don't have any questions. THE CHAIRMAN: I did have an extended conversation with Mr. Borducci yesterday. What we discussed, there are three items of old business. He has reviewed the files for all three of those. And if I misstate anything please jump in. He is also familiar with the minutes from those prior meetings. So, he feels comfortable sitting for these applications and we all agreed with that position. That's traditionally how we've done it. If a Board member misses a meeting and if there's no action taken, what the Board member does is read the minutes of the meeting they missed and then they're able to vote at the next meeting. Mr. Borducci has satisfied that and he is comfortable sitting and I think the rest of [you say us are as well. Mr. Salanitro, anything before we go to the public? MR. SALANITRO: [Know no questions. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cubita? MR. CUBITA: Yes, I do have a couple of items before we go to the public to make the process a little more efficient at the end. One of the items which is indicated in the presentation and it was brought up at the prior meeting is the ventilation issue. [They're there their is a statement in here that says: Applicant has committed to providing a state of the art ventilation so that nearby properties are not impacted [buy by the food service preparation. Could you just maybe expand on that a little bit . MR. ALLOCCO: Maybe I could have the architect, Mr. Moody, speak on that since he did the drawing for that. MR. CUBITA: Sure. Just to get an idea, did you look at one system that seemed the best or what was done? MR. MOOODY: Good evening. My name is Farhead Moody (Ph.). I'm the architect of record for this job. We did look at a couple of systems, but this one has the best track record. It's been used at many sites successfully. It will be sized appropriately as per the output requirements based on the equipment being used here. The vibration is very, very minimal and the way it's mounted on isolation pads on the roof the noise is also close to zero decibels. [Its the it's a double system which has a water fountain, a water spray which will get rid of all the solid particulates and then you have the gas passing through your charcoal filters and you get clean air coming out the other end. So, this thing I think exceeds pretty much the requirements of the town. MR. CUBITA: Thank you on that. Another item was that the loading and delivery area there's a comment in here that the times that those functions would take place on or before seven a.m. To minimize congestion in the parking area. I'm not totally familiar with the other businesses in that area, but I'm just curious about the real potential impact of that on those . MR. ALLOCCO: I could speak to that. Actually, the Planning Board asked me something similar at the last meeting. You've got a bank which opens up at nine and they have parking [they're there their. You've got a laundromat which opens up in the seven to eight range but doesn't again draw a lot of people who drive to the laundromat because [they're there their are several in the area and the parking being slim you get mostly people from Oakridge Place who go to the laundromat which will open around the same time. So, you will not get a lot of car activity from [they're there their. There's a florist that would not open up before nine I would suspect. [Its the it's the one that's got a banner over the door right now. It's a relatively new operation. The shoe repair place. Again, these are all places -- we're the earliest open. I think we specifically tried to be the first one because of the nature of the businesses. We wanted to actually be able to put the van into a parking space and not have it just sitting out blocking the area. And of course the nail place is not going to be rocking and rolling at nine o'clock either, so I'm thinking that that place actually runs pretty late in the day. We are the first ones to open. We wanted our deliveries to come before any of our -- also because we're trying to be a good neighbor the other tenants would be impacted by that negatively also and we don't want an issue with the landlord. So, we thought of that initially to be a good neighbor and also as the Board pointed out we did not want to cause any kind of a traffic blockage, cars trying to turn on Oakridge Place into their parking lot. So, by doing it as early in the morning as we can, these delivery companies are out that early. You see the bread at the door even before that sometimes. So, the Italian bread comes at five, six in the morning. So, that's the kind of operation we would expect our vendors would have. MR. CUBITA: The last item I have is there was some concern last time and once again expanding on your response was with the bulk waste removal. I think there was some question or interest in terms of a receptacle being in the parking lot area in the back . MR. ALLOCCO: Yes. We actually went away from that because we didn't want to take a parking space out of service. If you look at page two of the -- I'm gathering you got the second [paying page of the plan -- what you'll see is that the container is actually -- the parking lot is over here and the container is behind the building. So, the container will not take up a parking space. Actually, you could see the location will be right over here. It will be off behind the line of the building, and again, not in the parking space. MR. CUBITA: Thank you for addressing those items from the Planning Board . MR. ALLOCCO: Those were the issues we did want to amplify for you and I didn't want to continue talking. I'm happy to go on spot picking for you. THE CHAIRMAN: I have nothing at this time. The public hearing has remained open since we had this application late last year. Is [they're there their anybody in the audience that would like to speak with respect to this application, Lou's Luncheonette at 33 Mill Road? ([Know no comments.). THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing [know no one, is [they're there their a motion to close the public hearing on this application? MR. CAHALIN: Make that motion, Mr. Chairman. THE CHAIRMAN: Made [buy by Mr. Cahalin. Is [they're there their a second? MR. CUBITA: Second. THE CHAIRMAN: Second [buy by Mr. Cubita. All in favor. (All aye.). THE CHAIRMAN: Public hearing on this application is now closed. We're back to the Board. We'll start on the other side this time. Mr. Cubita, anything [if you remember they are further? MR. CUBITA: No further questions. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Salanitro? MR. SALANITRO: Just one question. With regard to the receptacle, according to the plan [they're there their is going to be an alcove or something built into the parking lot? You have a door there. MR. MOODY: This is regarding the screening that was asked for by the Planning Board. It's vertical slats to hide the receptacle. MR. SALANITRO: Is that a chain link fence with slats in it? MR. MOODY: Wooden slats . MR. ALLOCCO: Like a country gate kind of thing . MR. SALANITRO: And the container itself, that's the type of container on wheels that will be rolled out and put into a garbage truck ? MR. ALLOCCO: It's a heavy duty plastic one . MR. SALANITRO: And when is that receptacle to be removed each day, in the morning, in the afternoon ? MR. ALLOCCO: Daily is a requirement, so we intend to comply with that . MR. SALANITRO: Would that be done early in the morning, because I know with the garbage truck you'll get a lot of noise from that ? MR. VALERIOTI: Whatever we specify to them . MR. ALLOCCO: Just like we're going to require our vendors deliver early in the morning, we would require that our pick up take place at the same time . MR. SALANITRO: The thing with garbage trucks is you'll have a lot more noise with a dump truck . MR. ALLOCCO: We're hoping with the proximity to the street we're hoping they could do it without backing in and they could just pull along the side and take it in like our own highway department folks do . MR. SALANITRO: I would ask that that not occur during the early morning hours as the other operation and that they take that into consideration . MR. ALLOCCO: Make that closer to nine o'clock, okay . MR. SALANITRO: I have nothing [if you remember they are further. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Borducci, back to you . MR. BORDUCCI: I have [know no questions. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Cahalin? MR. CAHALIN: Just one. The other business you didn't mention, the deli, is he staying ? MR. ALLOCCO: I'm sorry. MR. CAHALIN: The deli, is he staying? MR. ALLOCCO: I'm not hearing you. MR. CAHALIN: Isn't there a delicatessen there ? MR. ALLOCCO: There is one there, but it's in the next building. [They're there their are actually two buildings there. MR. CAHALIN: What time does he open, do you know ? MR. ALLOCCO: He opens up, because I've gone there -- MR. CAHALIN: He's got to be open around seven, too . MR. ALLOCCO: He's not there at the crack of dawn, but he is there shortly after that. He can't get at his place through our parking lot, he's going to be over on the street. MR. CAHALIN: Just curious . MR. ALLOCCO: Routinely you'll see a minivan parked on the street [they're there their, that's the deli owner. THE CHAIRMAN: Anything else? MR. CAHALIN: That's it. THE CHAIRMAN: Ms. Uhle? MS. UHLE: I have a few things. Just a few things. The fire department did review the plans. They had no issues with regard to access and parking, etcetera, because you're an existing building. However, they were concerned with regard to your rear access, that portion out of the building -- I'm sorry, rear egress out of the building. They felt that that portion of the interior would need to be redesigned. So, I would recommend that before you come to the Planning Board you sit down with Lieutenant Santacruz or Captain Santacruz and see what his concerns are. He felt in looking at the plan that you could make some fairly simple modifications, but his [concern certain was that it wasn't a direct egress. That again involves the interior of the building . MR. ALLOCCO: That's on the interior of the plan? MS. UHLE: Yes. You have two doors there and you basically have to run by the fryer to get out of the first door and then to go out the rear door, so he thought some of those relationships needed to be revised . MR. ALLOCCO: I guess you're talking about when you go this way? MS. UHLE: Exactly. So, just that small portion he recommended being revised. So, you need to meet with him before you go to the Planning Board. I also wanted to confirm you have nine parking spaces on the plan, right, [they're there their are nine existing parking spaces ? MR. ALLOCCO: Right. MS. UHLE: One of those parking spaces is dedicated to Mr. Valerioti . MR. ALLOCCO: That's correct. MS. UHLE: So, technically you have a variance for eleven parking spaces not the twelve. Also, and I can give you a specific list of this, the Planning Board, you more or less addressed all of the Planning Board comments but I think they are going to want to see in much more detail the detail of the screening for the trash enclosure, the detail for the screening of the roof mounted equipment, a little bit more understanding of the overall height of the equipment. We have a plan and a simulated photograph, but when you get to [sight site cite plan they're really going to want to see specific details of what's proposed . MR. ALLOCCO: More specifics? MS. UHLE: Yes. [Its the it's a pretty simple list. I actually listed it in the draft Resolution and I'll share that with you, and as I said, you more or less addressed them but I think you need to address them in [mother more detail. The other thing I just wanted to go over with the Board and perhaps the applicant, I did also list just based on the applicant's submission and what the Planning Board comments were some conditions of potential approval for the special permit and I wanted to make sure that the applicant agrees to those and that the Board agrees. So, could I just go over these? THE CHAIRMAN: Absolutely. MS. UHLE: That you will be open to the public between the hours of six a.m. And four p.m. The hours keep changing so that's when you're open to the public . MR. ALLOCCO: That's fine. MS. UHLE: You're permitted to have a maximum of thirty-six seats. That's fairly obvious because that's what your variance is based on. Trash should be picked up daily excluding Sundays and holidays. I think you have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Board that the proposed mechanical and roof mounted systems do comply with our noise ordinance, and if they have zero decibels that should be easy to prove. Also, you need to understand that if you make any changes to the operations of the luncheonette, if you choose to get a cabaret license or get a liquor license or if you want to stay open later for dinner, that would require you come back before this Board for amended special permit approval, or if you decided to do, not that you're permitted to do this necessarily, a take out or carry out, that all requires that you come back to the Board. So, if you get an approval, it's for exactly what [you're your proposing today. And just further, the special permit will be subject to the final [sight site cite plan and architectural review approval [buy by the Planning Board to make sure that the applicant sufficiently addresses their site plan concerns. THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Uhle. Anything else from the Board? ([Know no comments.). THE CHAIRMAN: As Ms. Uhle indicated, if this were to get a majority of votes of this Board it would then go on for [if you remember they are further review of the Planning Board. MS. UHLE: For final [sight site cite plan approval, yes. THE CHAIRMAN: I'll take a shot at a Resolution on this one and then we'll put it to a vote. This is Application 05-86, Lou's Luncheonette, which seeks, one, a special permit for a restaurant in accordance with Sections 12.B and 12.H.22 of the zoning law of the town of Eastchester and two area variances from the minimum parking and loading requirements as regulated in Sections 12.B and 12.H.22 of the zoning law of the town of Eastchester and two area variances from the minimum parking and loading requirements as regulated in section 12.B, 12.H.22 and Sections 13 of the zoning law. Just to stop for a moment on the Resolution, I think one of the issues that we're faced with with respect to this application is that any applicant that goes into this store is going to need some kind of parking variance. So, part of what we're faced with here tonight is does a store remain vacant forever or are we willing to give somebody a parking variance, and that basically is what the issue is we're faced with here. Somebody is going to need a parking variance to occupy the store. Specifically in this case the restaurant is proposed to occupy an existing nine hundred square foot storefront located at 33 Mill Road in a retail business district. The storefront is part of a small shopping center that currently includes a total of seven storefronts and nine off street parking spaces, one of which will be dedicated to the 33 Mill Road tenant. The parking lot does not include a designated loading or delivery area. The proposed restaurant use requires a total of twelve parking spaces based on one space per seventy-five square feet of floor area or two one space per each of three seats whichever is greater. A designated loading and delivery area is required as well. As a result, the area variances are necessary to permit one space where a total of twelve are required, a deficiency of eleven spaces, and to allow the restaurant to operate without a designated loading and delivery area. The subject property is identified on the current tax assessment map of the town of Eastchester as Section 65, Block 4, Lot 19. Upon considering the presentation [buy by the applicant, the supporting materials referenced in this Resolution and the comments made [buy by the public, the Zoning Board makes the following findings with regard to Section 12B and 12.H.22 of the zoning law regarding the special permit requirements: One, as to [whether weather the location, size of the special permit use, the nature and intensity of the operation involved in it or conducted in connection with it, the size of the [sight site cite in relation to it and the location of the [sight site cite with respect to the street giving access to it are such that it will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development and use of the area in which it is located, the Zoning Board finds: In the affirmative. The luncheonette is proposed to occupy a vacant storefront within an existing shopping center in a commercial district. The luncheonette is proposed to be open to the public for breakfast and lunch service only between the hours of six a.m. And four p.m. And is expected to draw primarily local walk-in traffic. The commercial area within which the luncheonette is located contains a number of other eating establishments, many of which do not have designated parking. Ample public parking appears to be available in the immediate vicinity of the [sight site cite. Two, as to [whether weather the location, nature and height of the buildings, walls, fences and the nature and extent of existing or proposed plantings on the site are such that the special permit will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings, the Zoning Board again finds: In the affirmative. The luncheonette is proposed to occupy a vacant storefront within an existing one story building that includes a total of seven commercial tenants including a small delicatessen. Roof mounted mechanical equipment and a trash enclosure are proposed to be screened by decorative fencing and located to the rear of the building to minimize or eliminate views of these structures from Mill Road. Three, as to [whether weather the operations in connection with any special permit use will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, traffic, fumes, vibration or other characteristics than would the operations of permitted uses not requiring a special permit, parking area will be of adequate size for the particular special permit use properly located and suitably screened from adjoining residential uses and the entrance and exit drives shall be laid out so as to achieve maximum convenience and safety, the Board finds again in the affirmative. The applicant has committed to providing state of the art ventilation and exhaust systems so that nearby properties are not adversely impacted [buy by the food service operations. The existing parking lot will be used by building tenants only and is currently screened from the adjacent apartment building by a row of arborvitae planting along the rear property line on the adjacent property. The public access to the restaurant will be from the entrance on Mill Road so neighbors to the rear will not be affected. Regarding the requirements of Section 12.H.22, the Board finds: That based on the materials submitted by both the applicant and the testimony given at the public hearing, the application meets the special permit requirements for those items. In the interest of brevity and given the length of the agenda we have tonight, the detailed findings with respect to those specific findings will be included in the Resolution that's filed with the clerk's office and those items go on thirteen in total number. On the basis of the foregoing and the record, the Board finds: That this application satisfies the conditions of the special permit and meets the test for the area variances. Therefore, the Board hereby approves the application for a special permit and grants the variance subject to the following conditions: One, the restaurant will be open to the public between the hours of six a.m. And four p.m. Only, seven days a week. A maximum of thirty-six seats are permitted. That was number two. Number three is that trash must be picked up daily excluding holidays and Sundays. Four, the applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Board and the building department that all proposed mechanical systems will comply with the town's noise ordinance and must demonstrate to the Planning Board's satisfaction that the other issues raised [buy by the Planning Board when it reviewed this application have been adequately addressed. Next condition, I think we're [up you did to five, any changes in the proposed operation of the luncheonette beyond those described in the current application including but note limited to an intent to obtain a liquor license or a cabaret license, an intent to increase the hours of operation so as to open prior to six a.m. Or to close after four p.m. Or a change in the restaurant classification; for example, restaurant fast food, restaurant carry out shall constitute a change to the approved special permit and shall require that the applicant appear before this Board for amended special permit approval. Finally, this special permit is subject to [sight site cite plan and architectural review [buy by the town's Planning Board. That's my Resolution. Those are the conditions. Is [they're there their is a second? MR. CAHALIN: I'll second that. THE CHAIRMAN: A second [buy by Mr. Cahalin. Any comments from the Board before we go to a vote? (No comments.). THE CHAIRMAN: My Resolution, I'll vote yes. Mr. Cahalin, your second. MR. CAHALIN: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Borducci. MR. BORDUCCI: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Salanitro . MR. SALANITRO: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: And Mr. Cubita. MR. CUBITA: Yes. THE CHAIRMAN: [You're your application has been approved five to zero . MR. ALLOCCO: Thank you. THE CHAIRMAN: You're welcome. Moving [right write along, we go to the next item under old business which is Application 05-95, 46 Parkway Circle. MR. LUTZENBERGER: [May may it please the Board, my name is Louis Lutzenberger. I'm the attorney for the applicant seeking an area variance, Mr. Steven Ivkosic. The variance requested is a reduction of the frontage from the sixty feet required to a proposed fifty feet. I submitted a letter and some additional documents to supplement the record which I believe the Board has a copy of. THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, we do . MR. LUTZENBERGER: I would like to take as short as possible time simply to elaborate on that and a few particulars. In addition, I believe I [know no that neighbors filed an opposition brief at four p.m. Yesterday, a copy of which I obtained this afternoon at two o'clock and I'll comment on that to the extent I have been able to absorb it. In the event this matter is put over and I'll address this again, I would respectfully request an opportunity to reply to some of the arguments made in that document. To begin first with respect to the character of the neighborhood, which is one of the primary things we must look at in determining whether or not to grant an area variance, this neighborhood is one of almost fully developed single family residences. The basic question presented is whether frontage of fifty feet will deleteriously alter the character of that neighborhood. Our position is it will not, and the reason we say that is because [they're there their are already seventeen lots with fifty foot frontage in the neighborhood. I should add that when I say seventeen, we're counting the lot in question. That's about a forty percent build [up you did in the neighborhood that already exists, and therefore, we submit that you're not going to change the character by reason of this frontage alone. I'm going to make one comment here with respect to the opposition received, because I believe the numbers get confusing. In the opposition they state that [they're there their are only thirteen such lots of fifty foot frontage, a difference of four. The difference is these four lots that I have attached little red squares to. I believe the reason the objectants do not count those in their numerology is because these are the two lots at issue, we say they are two separate lots and they chose not to count them, and these two lots |