ARB Minutes 6-18-08

Minutes

Architectural Review Board

Village/Town of Mount Kisco

Wednesday June 18, 2008

Meeting called to order at 7:30 pm, Wednesday June 18, 2008, at the Municipal Building Mount Kisco, New York.

Members Present: Chairman Kevin Kelly

Bruce Hartleben

Nancy Abramson

Patty Kiernan

Members Absent: Ann Houck

Staff Present: Austin Cassidy

Staff Absent: None

New Cases:

1. Adrienne Marcus/Suzanne Tisne Case #ARB08-19

101 Croton Ave Addition/

Mt. Kisco, New York 10549 Alterations

Suzanne Tisne and Adrienne Marcus owners representing the application.

Suzanne Tisne: We would like to put a small addition on the house. These plans represent an idea we had last year, which included this particular project plus another one which we will not be doing. So these plans are labeled with phase I and Phase II. Phase I is what we are planning to do now, the front of the house. The rest we are not doing. Basically this will be a sun porch on the front of the house by 16'. All the siding and roof will match existing. Unfortunately the pictures of the houses across the street you are unable to see because of all the foliage.

Chairman Kelly: You are removing that dormer. What we can tell is that you are matching the siding. Do you have samples? (Viewing of samples) The windows are Anderson's to match the other windows. You meet setbacks so that is not an issue. Are there any questions? At a future time you will be coming back for the balance of this if you should decide to go forward.

Suzanne Tisne: Yes.

Nancy Abramson: I am looking at this window.

Suzanne Tisne: It is not like the other windows. If that is a problem we don't have to have it like that.

Nancy Abramson: I don't know. I am just thinking and that is all.

Suzanne Tisne: The contractor mentioned that and maybe we should keep it like the other windows.

Nancy Abramson: I like all the dormers and the cemetery and I would think that you would want it to blend in with the whole house. My thought is with a window like this it is a real different feel to it.

Suzanne Tisne: So we might just match it with this one.

Chairman Kelly: It is a little bit more present. You have a point where it repeats the same theme again. However this whole window arrangement is totally different than the rest of the house. I don't feel strongly either way. I could see that. Can the shutters fit? They could.

Nancy Abramson: It is not gong to be a dormer either way.

Chairman Kelly: Correct. It is going to be a lot like the picture over the garage. I actually think that the oval window on the inside would make it interesting. It is the outside that looks totally different than anything else. Inside I think that it will be an interesting space. It appears that you have a high ceiling in there with two collar ties planned for that space. There is a closet in the old section, beyond.

Nancy Abramson: I was just bringing it up; I think that it looks nice. Just pointing it out.

Patty Kiernan: I think that it looks nice.

Bruce Hartleben: I like it and I have been in the house. It is hard to picture.

Suzanne Tisne: Yes this is the third time for renovations but we were not here for the first.

Bruce Hartleben: To answer your question I do like it.

Chairman Kelly: We are matching materials and we are matching roofing and we are matching windows. Any concerns? Can I get a motion?

Nancy Abramson: I motion that we approve as presented.

Bruce Hartleben: Second.

Chairman Kelly: I am making notation that this is only for Phase I

Board All Ayes on the motion to approve.

Nancy Abramson: Aye on the motion

Bruce Hartleben: Aye on the second

Patty Kiernan: Aye

Chairman Kelly: Aye

Returning Case:

1. Theodore Strauss/Joseph Valvano Case #ARB04-67

71 Moore Ave amend original

Mt. Kisco, New York 10549 approval

Theodore Strauss, architect, representing the applicant

Austin Cassidy: Chairman before you begin I would like to preamble this one a little bit. This case has been before you in the past and previously approved for an enlargement for a rear garage and rear addition to the existing two family home. This was duly approved and permit issued and construction had begun. Somewhere along the line the builder and or client at this time has departed from the approved plans of record. The result is that the building is longer than is on the plans as well as the garage is bigger than what was on the plan. There were no zoning issues with respect to the dimensional deviation relative to the residence. There are deviations from design and style elements on the residence. The garage however does have a zoning issue. It has exceeded the maximum footprint allowed for a detached garage in our zoning. It would have to be physically dimensionally sized. Clearly the applicant does have an option to seek a variance which would be an exercise of futility in my opinion. Being that it was duly self created and in violation of the code. Aside from that there are also architectural deviations that have occurred with the respect of the garage and the nature of the door and the finer point of the design with the respect to the building. I would ask you to walk through with the esthetics view point and be mindful that the garage would have to be made smaller and compliant.

Chairman Kelly: Thank you. I have been out to the site and carefully walked it and reviewed it. For the interest of the applicant let's take this two fold. So that we can make this a productive meeting. Let's talk about the garage first. Austin has hit all the hot buttons. I may add in addition to total deviation from your plans and being an architect I would be pretty perturbed.

Theodore Strauss: You are being polite.

Chairman Kelly: We have a garage door that is drastically different and it is a commercial door and they fully intended a commercial door since they are storing commercial vehicles in the garage. The overall height when we looked at it and we did not have a survey to check it. We noted that it may have exceeded the height that is allowable. There are so many issues and I have had conversations with Austin on this. This needs to go back to what was approved by this board previously. Or you can elect to go before the zoning board of appeals as attempt and as Austin has implied to you that I think this is an exercise in futility. This was total disregard from the architect's plans and the town approved plans and the present zoning regulations. So having said that we can make a motion on the garage. I will listen to the board if they feel that I am wrong. I am very perturbed that the applicant has had total disregard for anything and everything that this board had suggested. Bruce do you have anything? The total scale went from residential garage to commercial storage facility.

Bruce Hartleben: These are the approved drawings?

Chairman Kelly: Yes. What this does not represent is that there is some grade changing in here so it is higher in reality when you go back there. It is disappointing that the client went and sis whatever he wanted to do. In my opinion this was not an error it was intended all along. Based on my inspection of the site and what is inside, they are storing all their commercial equipment. That is what fits in this garage.

Bruce Hartleben: What is before us is the esthetics correct?

Chairman Kelly: It does not comply. We have been told by our building inspector that it violates several regulations currently. So even if we technically liked it, it would not be approvable.

Bruce Hartleben: So I do not know why we are even looking at it.

Chairman Kelly: I think that this is a formality because the next option for this client is if we reject this to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals if they want to go that route and file an appeal for a hardship.

Nancy Abramson: They would have to appeal the size, but I will speak my opinion. I am not going to approve this. So they are in violation of their zoning, which we have nothing to do with. Assuming they got a zoning variance this is something that I am not going to approve. My personal opinion.

Bruce Hartleben: This is not a residential garage.

Austin Cassidy: You are reaffirming your prior approval relative to the detail.

Nancy Abramson: Right. Not only is this out of compliance in the zoning world but out of compliance in our Architectural Review Board world.

Chairman Kelly: So we need to instruct the applicant if they want to back to what was previously approved. You obviously would have to get a demo permit from the building department to demolish what needs to be demolished and go back to the original approved plans. Then I do not think that they would have to come back. I am looking for a motion on the garage. The motion is that we would be rejecting the new submission and reaffirming the prior approval.

Nancy Abramson: I motion that we are rejecting the garage of what was submitted today on the architectural and zoning elements and reaffirming what was the prior approval on January 19, 2004.

Bruce Hartleben: Second

Board All Ayes on the motion to reject current proposed garage for 71 Moore Ave.

Nancy Abramson: Aye on the motion

Bruce Hartleben: Aye on the second.

Patty Kiernan: Aye

Chairman Kelly: Aye

Theodore Strauss: May I request that this be submitted to my client in writing.

Austin Cassidy: There was a failure to make a motion to pass this.

Nancy Placona: A copy of the minutes can be submitted to you.

Chairman Kelly: Now let's proceed to the residence. I would like the record to stand just to know that there was total disregard to the original submission and approval. However after a meeting with the building inspector I am informed that they do comply with zoning regulations, I believe this board should review this as a fresh building.

Austin Cassidy: Only the dimensional issues that need to be compliant.

Nancy Abramson: Is there any penalty here for the disregard of the design?

Chairman Kelly: Can we have the originally signed approved plans. Let's start with the front elevation and work our way around. Austin required them to go out and do field inspection and as built drawings so as to know what was really there.

Austin Cassidy: That is correct.

Chairman Kelly: This way we know what was really built and no misunderstandings.

Nancy Abramson: What was he thinking?

Theodore Strauss: There is no way I can justify that.

Chairman Kelly: The previous plan dated 12/24/04 front elevation or street side elevation that is original. Appeared to be similar. It looks like the window placement upstairs seems to be pushed together a little bit. That is the only thing that I see as a difference.

Austin Cassidy: You may want to help the board Ted by walking them through the points of design deviation rather than hunt and pecking for it.

Theodore Strauss: The front elevation as you can see is very similar to the original approval.

Chairman Kelly: I just want the board members realize that the all though minor that these windows have been pushed together a little closer than the original. They to be the same size and style. Does anybody see anything on that? Now let's move to the rear elevation. It appears to be the same.

Nancy Abramson: Is there a difference?

Theodore Strauss: Not in the front or the rear. It is the side elevation. The significant difference is that they elongated the building by 10 feet. So the side elevation is where you are going to see the significant difference. This is what was originally approved. (Viewing of the plans) This area is the same and this has been elongated. Similar window arrangements.

Chairman Kelly: This one (window) was eliminated, the original is now gone. Those (windows) now line up. They have added two windows in the basement. That window is smaller than the original. Plus they are proposing to add shutters. Probably because of the shear mass of the wall.

Patty Kiernan: Shutters?

Chairman Kelly: Not on the originally approved plan. Not on the sides. No shutters now we have shutters.

Theodore Strauss: I believe the purpose of the shutters is obvious to diminish some of the massiveness.

Chairman Kelly: Right side twin windows they have added shutters. That looks the same Right side elevation. Window count appears to be the same except they have added shutters. The building is ten feet deeper.

Theodore Strauss: That is the difference.

Chairman Kelly: The materials are still the same.

Theodore Strauss: Yes. I brought samples.

Chairman Kelly: No change to colors, everything stays the same.

Theodore Strauss: Soft yellow is the siding the trim is white and the roof is a charcoal blend.

Chairman Kelly: The next time we need to have what the real colors are, so the board understands that it is not post it yellow.

Patty Kiernan: That is the right color?

Theodore Strauss: Yes.

Chairman Kelly: Did we originally approve that?

Nancy Placona: It is matching the existing.

Nancy Abramson: Now there is a lot of masonry in the front.

Theodore Strauss: You mean the stone work in the front?

Nancy Abramson: Yes.

Theodore Strauss: That work was proposed.

Nancy Abramson: They recently added a lot.

Theodore Strauss: You mean the created court yard?

Nancy Abramson: With all due respect it does not go with the porch treatment.

Theodore Strauss: The only thing that they did do was to bring the stone up the stairs going up and the front platform and steps as well as the side entrance also has stone work and that begins to tie in.

Chairman Kelly: Haven't we reviewed stone walls as part of elevations? The question is there a permit issued for the stonewall and Austin is not here to ask the question.

Nancy Abramson: There is a lot of it. All I am saying and in my opinion the porch treatment is very nice, but this does not tie into the house.

Theodore Strauss: If you look along Moore there are a number of houses that have the stone work porches.

Nancy Abramson: There is one house that has quite a bit of it.

Chairman Kelly: Nancy is looking to see if a permit was issued for this.

Nancy Placona: There is no permit for the stone work.

Nancy Abramson: There is another house on Moore that has a large amount of stone work.

Nancy Placona: Same family. I will follow up. There is no record of the work being done.

Patty Kiernan: You look at the original the windows are centered on the left side like on the right elevation. Now on this proposal they are not centered and I think that they should be. It seems that the extension of the building there needs to be one more window at the top. It seems that you would have to add. On the original you had three windows on top and two on the bottom. You have extended the building and you have two windows on the bottom.

Theodore Strauss: So you are looking to adding a window over the side door which is what was in the original.

Patty Kiernan: I think because you are extending that window would have to be bigger and move the smaller existing window on the new plan that window over the door.

Chairman Kelly: There use to be a window on the original plan there and this one proposed proportionately bigger to match all the others and then the cemetery for all the others. I follow what you are saying.

Theodore Strauss: That is not a problem to relocate those windows.

Patty Kiernan: And add?

Theodore Strauss: Yes. If that is the feeling of the board.

Patty Kiernan: I did notice the railing material is not changing?

Theodore Strauss: No. I presume the board has no objection to the shutters?

Chairman Kelly: I would like to hear everybody first.

Nancy Abramson: It looks like a railroad car. It is tremendous and I recall at the time we were surprised that they could go that far back. If we were in another community they would call this a McMansion. Here you have the building taking up most of the property. But that is our zoning. These houses you actually see on Moore Ave.

Bruce Hartleben: I have never been on the property and have only seen it from the street and I have noticed how long it is. I will break it down by all four sides. The rear is unchanged so no comment. The front I actually like how they have changed it. It looks better. On both sides I like the addition of the shutters because it does esthetically shorten the building but it still a long building. It is a nice job of trying to balance it out. The window placement has changed and the window size has changed and it looks to small. The shutters are a plus and the new size and placement are minuses and the extra length is a minus. I have notice how long it is from the street. I don't think it is a question whether it is in our jurisdiction or not because I have noticed all of the length of the house from the street and it is eye catching.

Nancy Abramson: Especially if it continues to be yellow.

Chairman Kelly: If I had my way I would be as stern as we were on the garage. I think that it is total disrespect to the town to this board, the building department and yourself. They went and intentionally risked peoples live by arbitrarily making a house bigger and not having it approved by a licensed architect. Having said that I agree with this board that it is way to long and I agree that he shutters are a help. I think the rearranging of the windows may help it slightly and I am concerned that moving it there may be a big void there. Moving this to here which would be like what the board originally approved. That will help that one comment that you said, but keeping mind that there will be a vast area here that will be nothing. I think this going back will help but the problem now I guess if they shift they can still do the shutters. That will help and I am not sure how we get past the overall length of the building.

Theodore Strauss: The other aspect which may help that we are decreasing the size of this to the original

Chairman Kelly: You have to go back to the original size. I am only one person on this board if I had my way I would have rejected this. If it had come in front of this board in the first place. Having said that even if they go before the Zoning Board of Appeals would probably be over ruled because they are in zoning compliance. I want the record to show that I am very unhappy with where we went here and for the applicant to totally disregard what was approved is very disturbing.

Patty Kiernan: Am I to understand that they have already built this?

Chairman Kelly: Yes they have already started this project. I walked this building and garage with Austin. They have put a substantial amount of work on it.

Patty Kiernan: They have already started it.

Nancy Placona: There is a stop work order out on this project.

Nancy Abramson: Everyone saw this and the alerts went out on it. People were calling me at home.

Bruce Hartleben: That is how you can notice how long it is.

Chairman Kelly: You set a precedence if you don't like what you are not suppose to get you build it anyway and then ask for forgiveness and that is where we are.

Nancy Abramson: In my opinion they can go to the Zoning Board and seek a variance and we can still reject it on the architectural review grounds.

Chairman Kelly: They do not need a zoning variance because they do comply.

Bruce Hartleben: I see two paths, reject it as is or approve it with modifications.

Chairman Kelly: WE can take it to three paths. We can reject it; we can ask for modifications and represent to the board so we can see what is going to happen. No disrespect to yourself but I have no confidence in this client.

Nancy Placona: Should the board make a ruling of yes you can ask the applicant to come back with a new set of plans with your conditions.

Nancy Abramson: Or we can reject it and they would have to come back with new plans.

Patty Kiernan: The issue we have is the ten feet and the square footage.

Chairman Kelly: There is a very good point here, we could go back to the route that we approved and we can add shutters and modify the approval. The applicants can then go and do what he has to do. At least this board will be on the record as to how we feel.

Nancy Placona: Then this board can either stay with the original approval or you can modify the original approval or you can reject the submission that was given to you tonight.

Bruce Hartleben: Or as resubmission with modifications.

Chairman Kelly: We have the right to say the applicant can go back to what was originally approved and add shutters as option 1 or just approve and go back to the original approval no modifications, and option three is to suggest modifications to this and have them come back for a follow up review.

Nancy Abramson: If we reject this they can still come back.

Chairman Kelly: Now that we have discussed all the possibilities I would like to pole the board.

Bruce Hartleben: This is an architectural question. If they kept the foundation the current length which is too long and pulled the roof line back ten feet so you have just one story extension in the back.

Chairman Kelly: The applicant can come back with multiple proposals for us to review.

Bruce Hartleben: Keeping the footprint but pulling the second story roof line back the ten feet.

Chairman Kelly: That is a creative point. Anything else?

Patty Kiernan: I would not want to approve that. I would suggest making modifications or go back to the original approval.

Nancy Abramson: I say the same

Chairman Kelly: I would prefer to reject what we see tonight and have the applicant come back. I think that Bruce has some creative ideas that they may want to rethink. At this point in time it is my feeling to reject what they have submitted and let them come back with something more palatable for this board. Let's not solve their problem.

Patty Kiernan: I move that we reaffirm our approval of the original approval with modifications of shutters and that we reject plans that were submitted tonight.

Bruce Hartleben: Second

Patty Kiernan: Aye on the motion

Bruce Aye on the second

Nancy Abramson: Aye

Chairman Kelly: Aye

Theodore Strauss: Bruce made a suggestion and can I get some sense of the board as to whether that would be a futile effort to resubmit or whether the board would look favorably on it.

Chairman Kelly: I think as an architect there are many alternatives. Maybe not full blown construction drawings but several alternatives would be palatable to the board. If they get rejected then you would have the right to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals and argue the case.

Informal Review:

Chairman Kelly: I believe we have an informal review or discussion requested by the applicant of 487 Main Street.

Neil Carnow: Members of the board I am Neil Carnow the architect for 487 Main Street. Would like to thank you for your consideration of seeing us tonight. I have with me Steve Chester representing Signs Ink, and Laurie Libbey representing the ownership. I am hoping to only take up about five minutes of your time. We have a current approval for the monument sign and other signage on the site.

Nancy Placona: This is coming back to you because during the fabrication of their sign they had some questions regarding the color of their sign before the fabrication is completed to make sure that this is what the board is looking for.

Neil Carnow: A while back and a number of iterations ago this board approved a clear anodized sign to replace the current monument sign. Slated in there would be the dark green with white cut outs.

Chairman Kelly: Can you refresh my memory as to how we got to green?

Neil Carnow: I really can't because I was not at the meeting.

Chairman Kelly: The applicant is concerned about the color. They are asking us for input and a potential modification of the color.

Laurie Libbey. We just want to make sure that you are happy with the decision.

Neil Carnow: The original design of this building had concrete block which we were going to be painting. As we got into construction we realized the concrete block was held up by absolutely nothing. We had to remove it and we replaced it with EIFS and that went to a slightly different color while that happened the signage colors remained constant. This in the dark green. There is nothing on this building that relates to that. There are no other elements, canopies that you can say it would relate to. It is also a difficult color to with to get the light through on the channel letters. As Steve was starting his fabrication of the sign he sent us an email and we are all going to take ownership of this sign very shortly. I thought it would be appropriate to bring this to the board's attention to get one last look at it. So if the board says the green is magnificent green you have ever seen so be it.

Chairman Kelly: You are aware that there is a moratorium with the signage and we have to be careful as to where we are headed.

Nancy Placona: This sign has already been approved. You can make a decision on the color change if your board sees fit.

Chairman Kelly: There is no sign package as of now. We don't know in the future what color signage would be on the building.

Neil Carnow: There is a package. The package has clear anodized returns.

Nancy Placona: There was sign placement shown to this board not a sign package.

Neil Carnow: There was a generic package of a clear anodized return.

Nancy Placona: This was not approved.

Neil Carnow: Correct. What we would do as we had individual signs we would look at it and make judgments and then the individual signs would come to this board for approval.