Architectural Review Board

Architectural Review Board Department of Planning & Community Development City Hall - Roosevelt Square Mount Vernon, New York 10550-2060 (914) 699-7230 Shawyn Patterson-Howard Robin Myers Mayor Chair ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING MINUTES FOR AUGUST 23, 2023 A regular meeting of the Architectural Review Board was held on Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 6:30 PM in the Memorial Room on the 2 n d Floor in Mount Vernon City Hall. ITEM #1 - ROLL CALL - Chair Robin Myers called the roll: in addition to the Chair, Commissioners Sylvia Woods and Buzz Riley were present. Also attending were Commissioner James Rausse, Deputy Commissioner Marlon Molina, William Hyland, Senior Planner, Maria Pace, Land Use Boards secretary, and U. Nkechi Nwachukwu, land use counsel. With a quorum present, the Chair opened the meeting at 6:30 PM. The meeting was live streamed on CMVNY Facebook. ITEM #2 - APPROVAL OF MINUTES Edits to the June 28, 2023 minutes were discussed and made during the during the work session. At the meeting, Commissioner Woods made a motion to approve the minutes with the edits, seconded by Commissioner Riley, and approved by a vote of 3-0. ITEM #3 - PUBLIC MEETINGS New Public Hearing 3.1 - ARB -23-14: 7 Atlas Place (Section 165.27, Block 2189, Lot 8) in the R1-4.5 District. The Architectural Review Board received an Affidavit of Sign Posting stating that on July 22, 2023, a sign was posted at the site giving notice of the Architectural Review Board’s August 23, City of Mount Vernon Meeting Date Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 2023 meeting. The Board also received photographs showing that the sign posting on the property has been provided with notice of today’s meeting. The Applicant was Sea Bright Solar, represented by Rod Kelly who is applying for installation of 17.4 Kw solar energy system consisting of 18 solar panels on the roof at 7 Atlas Place. The installation consists of 3 arrays with 7 panels on the front roof, 6 panels on the rear roof and 5 panels on the lower rear roof. The 11 panels on the rear roofs are not visible from the the front of the house nor from Atlas Place. There are 7 panels on the front roof, of which approximately 2- 3 panels are obscured by the gable roof on the right side of the front roof. The remaining five panels on the front roof are visible from the front of the residence. The solar installation complies with the 2020 Residential Code and fire access. The approximately 4, 000 sf subject property is located on the north side of Atlas Place some 180’ to the east of Hillcrest Road. The property is occupied by a 2 ½ story, stucco single-family residence located in the R1-4.5 zone The frontage of the property is 40’ along Atlas Place wh a 100’ depth. The roof material is asphalt shingle. SEQRA Determination: This action is a “Type II” action based on 617.5 (c)(15) “installation of solar energy arrays on an existing structure, provided the structure is not: (i) listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places; or is (ii) located within a district listed in the National or State Register of Historic Places, . therefore, ending the SEQRA process. Mr. Brian Kelly, owner of Sea Bright Solar, represented the applicant, Jillian McRae. He explained that there is a total of 18 panels with seven of them placed on the south-facing front roof as this side is the most productive part of the house to reduce electricity. While there are panels on the back, or north-side, of the house, relocating panels from the front to the back would not be viable or energy-efficient. Commissioner Riley asked what percentage of electricity would be saved using the panels. Mr. Kelly responded that the savings would be 87% for the front panels, but didn’t know the percentage for the rear panels, although “it would be significant.” Commissioner Riley asked how large the panels are. Mr. Kelly responded that they are rectangular and measure 40” w x 70” h and that they tried to optimize the number of panels based on aesthetics and productivity. Commissioner Woods expressed concern that because the home is a beautiful Tudor, it is paramount that the panels be in alignment with the design. The Chair asked if it would be possible to edit the number of panels. Mr. Gio Gianelli of Sea Bright Solar stated that there is 93% optimal exposure on the south side of the house vs. 46% optimal exposure on the north side. It would not be practical to decrease or relocate more panels to the north side as the cost of production would increase. 2 City of Mount Vernon Meeting Date Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Commissioner Riley then asked if the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, why is the south side more optimal? Mr. Kelly explained that the sun faces closer to the equator but on the north side it would be shaded by the peak and would not be hitting as directly. Ms. Jillian McCrae, the owner of the home, stated that she purchased it three years ago and that Sea Bright Solar worked with her concerning the aesthetics of the home. She also stated that the solar panels would add value to the home. Currently, the interior of the home is run exclusively by electricity so she is hoping her energy bill will be curtailed with the solar panels. Commissioner Riley asked if the panels on the front roof could be reconfigured to make them more balanced. Mr. Kelly replied that they would then have to remove some of the most optimally placed panels and rework the others, which would reduce production. Commissioner Riley then asked what the purpose was of the 36” access pathway. Mr. Kelly responded it is a Fire Code requirement. Commissioner Riley asked about structural concerns. Mr. Gianelli responded that a survey was done, and everything was determined to be fine. The Chair asked how old the roof is. Ms. McCrae responded that it is eight years old and Mr. Gianelli stated it was examined and determined to be stable. The Chair asked whether the technology with the panel design, energy collection and size of the panels has changed in the last five years. Mr. Kelly stated that there are newer, higher efficiency panels today that have also gotten larger. He also stated that different size panels yield different wattages and that his company uses three sizes, one a little smaller and the other a little larger than the proposed panels. Since panels of different sizes would not be compatible with one another, the company generally sticks to one size throughout the design process. Commissioner Riley then asked about solar shingles and if they are more prevalent. Mr. Kelly replied that many solar shingle companies have gone out of business; Tesla has some, but they are not as efficient. Commissioner Riley then asked about maintenance and how often the panels would need to be checked. 3 City of Mount Vernon Meeting Date Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Mr. Kelly explained that there is very little to maintain unless there is a failure in the system or a manufacturing defect. He said many solar panel manufacturers have warranties of up to 25 years. The Chair asked if power goes out, do the panels still work? Mr. Kelly said that the panels would only work if there was a back-up battery in place, which is not standard practice. The Chair asked if the owner would get a refund if she generates X amount of energy but uses less. Mr. Gianelli replied that the energy goes back to the power grid, but the owner gets a credit for the excess energy not being used. Land Use Counsel asked if the applicant would submit a cost/benefit analysis after three months of usage indicating what she paid for electricity prior vs. what she will pay when the solar panels are installed. This information would be helpful for future solar panel analyses. Commissioner Woods then made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Commissioner Riley, and approved by a vote of 3-0. New Public Hearing 3.2 - ARB-23-42: 523 South 3rd Avenue (Section 169.39-3117-22) in the R1-3.6 District The Architectural Review Board received an Affidavit of Sign Posting stating that on August 7, 2023, a sign was posted at the site giving notice of the Architectural Review Board’s August 23, 2023 meeting. The Board also received photographs showing that the sign posting on the property has been provided with notice of today’s meeting. The owner, Ms. Everee Allison, was represented by Trinity Solar for the installation of a 9.6 KW rooftop PV Solar System at 523 South 3rd Avenue. The 4,120 sf subject property is located on the east side of South 3rd Avenue approximately 300’ south of East Sandford Blvd. The property is occupied by a 2-story, wood framed single family residence in the R1-3.6 residential zone. The residences along South 3rd Avenue are smaller homes on similar sized properties. There is a commercial bakery and warehouse property to the south of the subject property on the west side of the Avenue. The Applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the installation of the PV solar system which will include 24 solar modules. The front upper off facing South 3rd Avenue are proposed for 12 modules with another 12 panels on the rear roof. There will be no trees taken down in connection with the installation. The house has a 9” driveway on the south side of the 4 City of Mount Vernon Meeting Date Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 property. The closest house to the north is a small house 30’ distant. The rear yard has a 53’ rear yard setback and a two-car garage with a flat roof in the south east corner of the property. SEQRA Determination – The proposed action is a Type II action based on 617.5(c)(15) “installation of solar energy arrays on an existing structure, provided the structure is not: (i) listed on the National or State Register of Historic Places; (ii) located within a district listed in the National or State Register of Historic Places; (iii) been determined by the Commissioner of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to be eligible for listing on the State Register of Historic Places pursuant to sections 14.07 or 14.09 of the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law.” Ms. Kelly Ippolito from Trinity Solar explained that there are 12 panels on the front roof and 12 on the back. The Chair asked if there was any reason why the front panels can’t be relocated to the back detached structure. Ms. Ippolito explained that a trench would need to be dug around the structure so it could be tied to the electrical system of the house. Commissioner Riley sked why the need for so many panels (24 total). Ms. Ippolito stated that the number of panels was designed to offset the electricity. Commissioner Woods expressed concern that the number of panels appeared to be overtaking the roof. Commissioner Riley asked if two panels could be removed from the front and then the other 10 be centered on the front roof for balance. After further discussion, the ARB discussed approving the application based on the applicant satisfying one of two options: remove two panels from the front and re-center the remaining 10 OR reorient the panels to landscape format and submit solar offset measurements. The applicant would send the revised plans to the Planning Department so they can be forwarded to the ARB for final review and approval. Commissioner Riley then made a motion for conditional approval of the application if one of the two conditions is met, seconded by Commissioner Woods, and approved by a vote of 3-0. 5 City of Mount Vernon Meeting Date Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 New Public Hearing 3.3 – ARB- 23-52: 144 East Kingsbridge Road (Section 169.64, Block 3097, Lot 3) in the Industrial Zone The Architectural Review Board received an Affidavit of Sign Posting stating that on August 9, 2023, a sign was posted at the site giving notice of the Architectural Review Board’s August 23, 2023 meeting. The Board also received photographs showing that the sign posting on the property has been provided with notice of today’s meeting. The owner, Mr. Jacob Morris (Morris Moving & Storage), is the owner. He is represented by his architect, Mr. Tom Abillama. The subject property is located on the south side of East Kingbridge Road on the Bronx border in the Industrial zone. The property contains a 3-story, flex warehouse and an open parking storage area. The building contains Mr. Morris’ company, Morris Moving and Storage. The site is part of a larger 0.90 acre property to the east. This larger property contains a Public Self Storage Facility and other warehousing. There is warehousing across Kingsbridge Road from the subject property. Applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to provide new stucco design along the front and one side of the building (driveway and parking lot side to the west). The Plans show the legend for the stucco including color option. Catalogue cuts have also been provided. There is no lighting shown on the plans nor is there a landscape plan provided. SEQRA Determination – The proposed action is a “Type II” action under SEQRA based on DEC 617.5 (c) (9) “construction or expansion of a primary or accessory/appurtenant, ,non-residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consistent with local land use controls.” therefore, ending the SEQRA process. Ms. Carla Tannous, an architect working with Tom Abillama, stated that they wanted to change the facade from brick to stucco as well as replace the windows and eliminate some as they are not needed. These unnecessary windows would be replaced with brick. She also said that the existing lighting will remain the same and that they are downward-facing lights. Commissioner Riley asked what the current function of the building is and how it will change. Mr. Abillama said it will remain as warehouse and storage space and that the windows proposed to be removed will not be needed for the storage spaces. Commissioner Riley asked about a central mechanical system for air flow. Mr. Abillama stated that there is one in place. 6 City of Mount Vernon Meeting Date Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 Commissioner Woods questioned why the windows are being removed. Mr. Abillama stated that they want to close as much as they can because the windows are old and they are worried about leakage through the windows on the mechanical system. Commissioner Riley asked about the building being identified as manufacturing but the application states it is storage. The Chair then clarified that the building is currently filed as a storage facility with the city, not as manufacturing. Commissioner Woods asked if the building is rental storage or private use storage. Mr. Abillama stated it is for private use. Commissioner Riley asked whether the interior is entirely existing. Mr. Abillama confirmed that it is, with the exception of an elevator that will be installed. Commissioner Riley asked if any work is being done to the existing stone retaining wall and if the existing fences will be modified. Mr. Abillama stated that both will remain the same. Commissioner Riley asked about the zone the building is in; it was confirmed to be the Industrial Zone. Commissioner Riley then made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Commissioner Woods, and approved by a vote of 3-0. New Public Hearing 3.4 – ARB-23-53: 114 North 8th Avenue (Section 165.61, Block 1108, Lot 10) in the RMF- 6.75 District. The Architectural Review Board received an Affidavit of Sign Posting stating that on August 9, 2023, a sign was posted at the site giving notice of the Architectural Review Board’s August 23, 2023 meeting. The Board also received photographs showing that the sign posting on the property has been provided with notice of today’s meeting. The owner, Wen Ming Xie, was represented by Mr. Tom Abillama, Architect. The subject 7 City of Mount Vernon Meeting Date Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 property is a 5,000 sf lot on the west side of North 8th Avenue, approximatly 150’ to the north of West Sidney Avenue in the RMF-10 zone. The lot has a 50’ width on North 8th Avenue with approximately 100’ depth. The property is occupied by a 2 ½ story frame two-family residence. Applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the renovation of a new enclosed front porch. The work will entail the relocation of the existing canopy at the front porch and the front door to the side of the residence and relocate the window from the side of the house to replace the door in the front. The plans are shown on the submitted drawing A.01. Applicant’s architect has provided catalog cuts for the materials including the door and window to be used in the project. There are no exterior lights shown on the front porch. There is an existing driveway on the south side of the residence. SEQRA Determination – The proposed action is a “Type II” action under SEQRA based on DEC 617.5 (c) (11) " construction or expansion of a single-family, a two-family or a three-family residence on an approved lot including provision of necessary utility connections as provided in 617.5(c)(13).....” therefore, ending the SEQRA process. Mr. Abillama stated that the client started to move the door, but the Building Department stopped it because no permit was issued. The plan is to move the door to the side of the house along with the current canopy. The window and paneling in the front will be replaced to make it uniform with the rest of the enclosed patio. The railing on the side stairs will be wrought iron. The Chair questioned why there is a brass door, a stainless-steel canopy and a wrought iron railing when all three should be more harmonious with each other. Commissioner Riley noted that there were three different elements that are not consistent with the existing architecture of the house. He also felt that there was not enough presented to get a sense of what is going on to look complete. The Chair suggested that the applicant should rethink the goals of the design and return to the next meeting with revisions. After further discussion, the ARB asked the applicant to return to the September 27 meeting, noting three conditions for the application: • remove/change the front door • provide more consistent railing • reconsider the canopy. 8 City of Mount Vernon Meeting Date Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 New Public Hearing 3.5 - ARB-23-59: 90 Overhill Road (Section 159.82, Block 03, Lots 3, 7, 20) in the R1-7 District (single-family). The Architectural Review Board received an Affidavit of Sign Posting stating that on August 7, 2023, a sign was posted at the site giving notice of the Architectural Review Board’s August 23, 2023 meeting. The Board also received photographs showing that the sign posting on the property has been provided with notice of today’s meeting. The owner, Mr. Peter Nguzen, was represented by Mr. Joseph Sultana, Architect with JSL Design. The subject property is a 19,093 sf property on the south side of Overhill Road, approximately 195’ to the east of the intersection with Brookfield Road. The majority of the property is in the City of Mount Vernon with 2,957 sf in the Town of Eastchester to the east. The property is in the R1-7 single-family zoning district. This portion of the town is not part of the application. The property has 35’ frontage along Overhill Road. The property is occupied by a 2 ½ story stucco, single-family residence. The overall project is a one story addition to the rear of an existing wood framed single-family dwelling. The interior of the house will all be renovated with new material and finishes. Applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness for the legalization and rebuilding of the roof of a one-story addition and enclosure of an existing open patio. All exterior materials will match existing materials. The new windows will be by Marvin Windows and will match all dimensions and mullion pattern of existing windows. There were no variances required for the project. Applicant has provided the Plan Examiner’s Report revised 6/27/23 which includes the list of drawings, and elevations. The Applicant has provided color photographs of all building and a rendering of the patio area. SEQRA Determination – The proposed action is a “Type II” action under SEQRA based on DEC 617.5 (c) (11) "construction or expansion of a single-family, a two-family or a three-family residence on an approved lot including provision of necessary utility connections”......” therefore, ending the SEQRA process. Mr. Barry Zhang, an architect with JSL Design, explained that the work was initially for the interior of the house only but when it became clear that the open patio with an extension to the rear of the house had never been legalized, they now need to go through the process of verifying the floor area, that the lot coverage complies with zoning, and that the extension to the rear is not visible from the front. He noted that they plan on using smooth stucco to revitalize the house. 9 City of Mount Vernon Meeting Date Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes August 23, 2023 The Chair asked if the windows would be replaced and if the intent is to keep the existing slate roof and also, will the new gabled roof on the extension be kept in kind. Mr. Zhang confirmed that the windows would be replaced, but with design and color in mind. They are also working on finding the correct materials for the roof. He said that the new owner is willing to do what it takes to fully restore the existing house. Commissioner Riley questioned why the owners decided to put dormers on the side of the house as they look heavy compared to the existing ones. Mr. Zhang stated that the idea was to break up the existing monotony of the house. The Chair asked if the existing door will be changed and that she would like to see the front door detail. Mr. Zhang stated that the door will hopefully be restored. Commissioner Riley asked if there will be any landscaping and if so, to consider using native plants. He also asked if there would be any landscaping lighting. Mr. Zhang replied that most likely landscaping lighting would be added. The Chair asked about tree removal, based on a concern from the neighbors, and noted that trees may be removed if similar sized tress are planted in their place. She recommended that the applicant go through the tree ordinance process to understand what needs to be done. Commissioner Riley then made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Commissioner Woods, and approved by a vote of 3-0. There being no other business, the Chair made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Commissioner Woods, and approved by a vote of 3-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:43 pm. Maria Pace Land Use Secretary Bob Galvin AICP, Planning Administrator 10