Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1959_03_12 Town Board Minutes K. } MINTTTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK,, HELD MARCH 12, 1959, IN THE AUDITORIUM OF THE WEAVER STREET FIRE- HOUSE, WEAVER STREET, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. PRESENT. Supervisor Burchell Councilman Brush Councilman Kane Councilman Santoro ABSENT. Councilman Waterman ALSO PRESENT. Mr, Gronberg - Town Clerk Mr. Delius - Town Attorney Mr, Friedlander - Town Engineer & Building Inspector Mrs, Brewer - Deputy Clerk CALL TO ORDER The Supervisor called the meeting to order at 8.15 p.m. stating that the meeting was called for the purpose of holding a public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance for the Town of Mamaroneck. He extended a cordial wel- 1 come to all present and introduced his fellow-members of the Town Board, the members of the Planning Board, the Town Attorney, Mr. Delius, the Building Inspector, Mr, Friedlander, and the consultant to the Planning Board, Mr, Frederick P. Clark, PUBLIC HEARING After the Supervisor requested those who wished to be heard on this matter to address the Board in the sequence suggested on the Procedure Outline furnished to all present, he declared the hearing open and the Clerk presented the af- fidavit of publication of the Notice of Hearing as publishedin the official newspaper of the Town of Mamaroneck, The Daily Times, on March 2nd, 1959. The following persons were then heard. a. Representatives of Municipalities No one. b. Representatives of Civic Associations -- -- Pinebrook Civic Association--Michael Bernkopf 44 Woods Way, Larchmont Mr. Bernkopf stated that the Association protested the proposed change in zoning of that property on the west side of Palmer Avenue between the Larchmont Village and New Rochelle City lines from residential to business (ob-1) because such a change would increase traffic with great danger to the children living in the area and be detrimental not only to that particular section but to the entire community due to resulting decrease in property value. He further stated that the resi- dents were less interested in reducing or keeping the tax rate down through use of business zoning than in keeping the Town of Mamaroneck a residential com- munity. Larchmont Hills Civic Association--Arthur Bogardus 17 Overlook Terrace, Town Herbert Askwith 57 N. Chatsworth Ave. , Town Hayden Smith 8 Lafayette Drive, Town Alen K. Strong 8 Valley Road, Town Written protests to the inclusion of the proposed o.b. -2 zoning under the signatures of Mr. and Mrs. Warner F. Apt and Mr. and Mrs, Robert Parsons of 7 Lafayette Road and 42 North Chatsworth Avenue respectively, and a telegram signed by William M. McNair, were ordered received and filed, Mr. Bogardus stated that the Association approved the new Ordinance with the notable exception of the proposed o.b. 2 district and that in addition to the above notedpro- tests, he had some forty-four proxies registering protest to the inclusion of this zoning. He advised, however, that if the Town Board felt that o.b. 2 was desirable for the good of the Town, the Association would like such zoning strengthened by the inclusion of the suggestions which Mr. Herbert Askwith had been requested to present. Mr. Askwith spoke briefly on each of the suggestions con- tained in the memorandum which he presented in writing and the Board ordered received and filed. He urged the inclusion of the recommendations in order to provide the stricter control needed over the proposed o.b. 2 district to prevent any down-grading in the area and spoke at some length in regard to the need for the creation of an Archi- tectural Board as recommended stating that in the many communities where such boards existed, in each instance their advisory services had proved to be of great value to the community. Mr. Smith, stating that he, too, was speaking for the As- sociation, protested the inclusion of the proposed o.b. 2 district in the Ordinance as it conflicted with and violated the residential character of the Town. He also questioned the motivation behind the inclusion of such a district, stat- ing that the only possible reason he could conceive of would (v be a financial one and that he seriously questioned whether there would be any net gain to the Town, Mr, Strong stated that he wished to go on the record as seconding the recommendations presented by Mr. Askwith, and also that he wished to record his de- sire that the Town be kept residential in character, Murdock Woods Civic Association--Maurice Austin 7 Split Tree Road, Scarsdale Mr, Austin spoke briefly on the points presented in the communication addressed to this Board by the Murdock Woods Association under date of March 9, 1959 requesting that the proposed Ordinance be amended to include an R-25 district (25, 000 square feet) with a minimum street line frontage of 150 feet, Pinebrook Civic Association--Michael Bernkopf Mr, Bernkopf, speaking for the second time, stated that the Pinebrook Association endorsed the sugges- tions presented by the Larchmont Hills Association adding that he, personally, questioned the need for office buildings in the Town of Mamaroneck and the necessity for any such zoning, c. Private Individuals and Corporations Represented by an Attorney -- Joseph E. Muson--10 Fiske Place, Mount Vernon as Attorney for Soundview Woods, Inc, Mr, Muson stated that Soundview Woods, Inc, ac- quired some thirty-one acres of property bordering the Bonnie Briar Country Club in 1955 for developmentpur- poses and filed plans therefore immediately. In con- nection with the proposed development, the developers in order to cooperate with the Town in meeting the oppo- sition of the residents of Bonnie Briar Lane to having the developers use Bonnie Briar Lane as an entrance to the proposed development, had a bridge constructed at considerable expense making it possible to use Feni- more Road as the entrance. The developers then engaged the services of Frederick P. Clark, the same person serving now as your consul- tant on this proposed Ordinance, to lay out a plot plan. This plan containing some sixty-one half-acre plots as laid out by Mr. Clark, in turn was presented and filed with the Planning Board. Now, under the proposed Or- dinance increasing the area restrictions in this district, the developer would lose one building lot. If the Town Board sees fit to adopt this proposal Mr. Muson stated that it would invite litigation to retain the same area re- strictions previously required in this district. He concluded his remarks by pointing out that since the Soundview Woods property borders districts zoned R7. 5, R10, and R15, the developers strongly protest the upzoning proposed in the new Ordinance, Harry G. Davidson--249 Huguenot Street, New Rochelle as Attorney for James N. Dandry Mr. Davidson spoke in reference to Block 501 - Parcel 1, which property is owned by Mr. Dandry and located on the west side of Palmer Avenue near the New Rochelle City line, to be zoned o.b. 1 in the proposed Ordinance. He stated that the property looks on the railroad tracks and New England toll booth in the rear and to the east is surrounded by gasoline stations, apartment houses, and a dog hospital. He further stated that since the property due to its topography was totally unsuited for residential building purposes, the owner was emphatically in favor of the proposed zoning (office building), adding that such zon- ing would restrict the type of building which could be erected, mandate the provision of adequate parking facili- ties, and require little in the line of municipal service. Therefore, he said, he failed to see how the proposedzon- ing could fail to provide an assessment gain for the Town. Harold Blass--175 Main Street, White Plains as Attorney for Briar Del Homes, Inc. Mr. Blass stated that the owners of Briar Del homes as the proposed purchasers of the Murdock Woods develop- ment requested the revision of the proposed R20 zone af- fecting the Murdock Woods area. He explained that the proposed zoning requiring a first floor area of 1, 900 square feet would make all nineteen houses in the Murdock Woods development non-conforming and stated that the sug- gested provisions were economically prohibitive to a builder as any house built to conform would have to sell for $70, 000 to $80, 000. He referred to the Split Tree Road homes and the surrounding Scarsdale area, stating that it was well developed with homes built to sell at $•50, 000 to $60, 000. Further he pointed out that the Briar Del de- velopment had 1/2 acre plots with 100 foot frontage and Murdock Woods 15, 000 square feet with 100 foot frontage, and therefore in view of the existing circumstances, pro- tested the proposed up-zoning. Robert G. Finelli--271 North Avenue, New Rochelle as Attorney for Rosemont Farms, Inc. Mr. Finelli inquired whether the provisions under the R30 zone included split-level homes and in reference to the proposed frontage requirements, stated that his clients had started off with eight plots under the former requirements and would now be left with two plots, one fronting on Feni- more Road and one on Cornell Street, which would be non- ra conforming. He pointed out the legal dilema his clients were in if the frontage requirement in the Town of Ma- maroneck were one thing and in Scarsdale another with this property fronting both communities. He stated that the property in question had 25, 500 square feet on Feni- more Road and 27, 000 on Cornell Street and inquired whether the proposed Ordinance would mean his clients would be confiscated of two plots in order to meet the new proposed requirements. He stated that if this were so, it would be highly confiscatory and invite legal ac- tion to protect the rights of his clients. "I submit, " he concluded, "that you cannot legislate my clients out of usable use of these plots. " George P. Forbes, Jr. --8 Devon Road, Larchmont as Attorney for Frank Guadagnolo Mr. Forbes stated that his client, the owner of that property bounded by North "Chatsworth Avenue, Garfield Street and Adams Street with an area of some 2. 68 acres, was in favor of the proposed 0.b. 2 zoning but felt thatthis zoning should go further. Under the proposed Ordinance, a building may occupy only 15jo of the property and is limited to two and a half stories in height. Therefore, he said, he believed the provisions in the proposed Ordinance as it now stands provided sufficient control to the Town Board and Planning Board over the development of this property and he could see no need for any Architectural Board of Review such as had been proposed earlier in the evening. Mr. Forbes then referred to #4 which stated that no building permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any new building or accessory building or use except in accordance with the plan of development. He stated that he felt this provision was sufficient and he did not believe that the proposed use would harm the surrounding area in any way. Further he stated that he felt the proposed zoning would enable the Town to recoup some of the revenue lost because of the construction of the Thruway. He addedthat anything that would not harm any one and would help the Town obtain taxes is good and that the adoption of this rec- ommendation without change would be in the best interest of the Town. Peter Mosher--271 North Avenue, New Rochelle as Attorney for Mandeville Properties, Inc. Mr. Mosher thanked the Board for including in the proposed Ordinance a new zone making most apartment houses legal or - conforming but requested that this be amended so as to include all present apartment houses so that in case of fire, restora- tion of property could be made at full value rather than under the present 50jo damage loss clause due to non-conformity. William S. Brill--175 Boston Post Road, Larchmont as Attorney for Lloyd Harris Mr, Brill requested permission to submit a written statement by next Wednesday, March 18th, which was granted. d, Private Individuals and Corporations, Appearing on their own Behalf -- Herbert A. Einhorn--12 Glen Eagles Drive, Larchmont Mr. Einhorn presented a written memorandum submitted on behalf of all amateur radio operators in the Town re- questing amendment of Section 422. 1 of the proposed Ordi- nance by insertion of the words - or amateur electronic devices and - in order to eliminate any possible ambi- guity with respect to the use of amateur antennae on pri- vate residences for radio transmission. William T. Knott--Park Plaza Apartments, Larchmont Mr. Knott stated that he endorsed the request presented by Mr. Einhorn and requested that this be shown in the record. M. K. Bretzfelder--7 Glen Eagles Drive, Larchmont Mr. Bretzfelder inquired whether if an Architectural Board of Review were created as recommended by Mr. Ask- with a certificate of occupancy could be issued when a build- ing was completed in the late fall if the provisions set forth regarding planting were incorporated in the proposed Or- dinance. He was advised that under such circumstances, a certificate of occupancy could be issued provided suchplant- ing as the season permitted was done at the time of building completion. Louis R. Tolve--220 Mount Pleasant Avenue, Mamaroneck Mr. Tolve, speaking for himself and as a member of the Building Trades Association, protested the proposed increase of area requirements, frontage requirements, and minimum house size, claiming that hardship would be created on all those connected with the building trades living in the Townof Mamaroneck. He stated that these people had a right to live here and to earn their living here and urgently requested the Board to leave well enough alone as the restrictions sug- gested if incorporated in the Ordinance would make building prohibitive in the Town. Dr. Lawrence B. Hobson--25 Echo Lane, Town Dr. Hobson inquired through the Chair whether Mr. Tolve JI'VI J thought the Ordinance should be left in its original shape? George A. Frank--52 Livingston Road, Scarsdale Mr, Frank, stating that he was the Executive Vice President of the Builders Association of Westchester, Inc„ with permission of the Chair answered Dr. Hob- son°s question, advising that in general the Association found the proposed Ordinance entirely reasonable. He continued to say, however, that there were sev- eral matters which he hoped the Board would consider most seriously before adoption of the proposed Ordi- nance. These were -- 1) The proposed frontage requirements and mini- mum house size in the R 30, R 20, and R 15 zones as these, if adopted, would so increase costs as to make building prohibitive. 2) Excessively restrictive zoning and subdivision requirements which in any community exclude young people from purchasing homes and also can exclude residents from continued residency in that community, 3) The need existant in the Town of Mamaroneck, if any, for the proposed rezoning of certain areas for business use. Alfred Willis--Alden House Apartments, Town Mr. Willis, an Architect representing the Art Craft Studio, located on Hommocks Road and Boston Post Road requested that the line on the property along the east side of the Boston Post Road from Flinn Motor Sales run straight through the property of his client and that the en- tire area be zoned for business use to conform with the zoning of the Flinn property and that of the Larchmont Motel. William Glasser--17 North Chatsworth Avenue, Town Mr, Glasser, developer of Glen Rock Estates, pro- tested the proposed upzoning under the R 15 and R 30 zones. He explained that part of his property comes under R 15 and the balance under R 30, and that while he had planned houses on three-quarter acre plots in the area adjoining Winged Foot Golf Club (R 30), it was not possible to develop the re- mainder under the proposed R 15 requirements due to the type of neighborhood areas bordering this section of his property. He further stated that he felt his developmentwas being harder hit than any other under the proposed Ordinance and registered strong protest. The following persons speaking as individual builders or as the representative of a building corporation strongly protested the proposed increase in floor square footage requirements, stating that houses built to conform would be of such size and expense as to be prohibitive and vir- tually impossible to sell, William F. Cannella--Larchmont Terrace Apartments (Representing Kenmare Builders) Irwin Oster--3 Split Tree Road, Town George E. Mills, Jr, --11 Kenmare Road, Town Mr. Mills, representing the Larchmont Real Estate Board, requested clarification of the proposed zoning un- der R 6 and R 7. 5 with regard to property owners rights. After the Town Attorney read and explained the sec- tions, Mr. Mills, stating that the Board believed people were concerned about the question of inherited rights, asked whether a person could build on such property if it became non-conforming under the proposed Ordinance, The Attorney advised that a person in such position could build in accordance with the provisions of the Ordinance or appeal to the Board of Appeals for a variance. Mr. Mills registered protest at the proposed change as it affected properties under these districts. e. All Other Parties Mrs. John Penn--13 Rochelle Road, Town Mrs. Penn, referring to the remarks of Mr. Tolve, ques- tioned the matter of unemployment for any connected withthe building trades in this community, stating that it would seem to her .that ny seeking employment could find it on the still unfinished Thruway if no where else in the Town. The following individuals, all residents of the Town, regis- tered strong protest to the proposed area increase in the R 6, R 7. 5, and R 10 zones, which would make their property non- conforming and thus adversely affect the restoration of the property in the case of damage loss. John Sherman--61 Echo Lane, Town Allen K. Strong--8 Valley Road, Town George Schuler--70 West Garden Road, Town George Basile--294 Weaver Street, Town James Mancusi--62 Weaver Street, Town Frank Ma Sullivan--16 Winthrop Avenue, Town F. R. Heuberger--485 Weaves Street, Town Vincent J. Ciardullo--4 Cabot Road, Town A. Tighe--10 Winthrop Avenue, Town Vincent Marinello--7 Leafy Lane, Town L. J. Venerose--10 Leafy Lane, Town Manfred Goldschmidt--130 East Brookside Drive, Town Mrs, Pearl Caricati--429 Weaver Street, Town Dr, Maurice E. Serling--6 Weaver Street, Town Dr, Serling stated that he was the owner of property lo- cated within 210 feet of the northerly intersection of the Boston Post Road and Weaver Street and protested the re- zoning of this property in the R 6 zone, He stated that this property had been used for business purposes since 1931 pursuant to resolution of the Town Board and requested that it be zoned for business in the proposed Ordinance, J. W. Moran--18 Coply Road, Town Mr, Moran pointed that the R 6 zone included the rail- road and protested the existance of any residential zone including a railroad, G. W. Moody--Dudley Lane, Town Mr, Moody seriously objected to the proposed upzoning of Dudley Lane, stating that there were no vacant lots - available and that the proposed upzoning would prevent the rebuilding of a house as built under the previous zoning. He stated that he was strongly opposed to any rezoning which prohibited rebuilding as an owner chose to rebuild. The following persons spoke in protest to the inclusion of the proposed o,b. 2 zone: Melvin Helitzer--11 Lafayette Road, Town Mr, Helitzer stated that the establishment of an Architectural Board of Review would not meet -- the only objection to an o,b, 2 zone, There are many other objections to such a zone, he con- tinued, and many of us intend to exercise every legal right we have to fight the rezoning of this area. He recalled a meeting held some six or seven years ago on this matter when the people voted to keep the area in the zone it is presently in and he requested that his request that this area be retained as a residential district be incorporated in the record of this hearing, Julian Bers--9 Lafayette Road, Town Mr, Bers stated that not one person had spoken in favor of business zoning for the area in question at the meeting Mr. Helitzer referred to, but that all present at that time had spoken in favor of the continuation of residential zoning. He further stated that this proposed zoning certainly presented a reversal of the peoplels vote at that time and he for- mally protested the proposed downgrading. Harry Bachrach--103 Bdgewood Avenuea Town Mr, Bachrach inquired whether stores or shops would be included in the proposed o.b. 2 zone, and was advised that they were not, John C. Padyk--100 Madison Street, Town Mr, Padyk stated that he wished to record his formal protest to the proposed o.b. 2 zoning, John H. Cuthbertson--16 Lafayette Road, Town Mr. Cuthbertson also requested that the record show his protest to the proposed o.b. 2 zoning. COMMUNICATIONS In addition to the communications and memoranda presented at this meeting, the following communications were received prior to the date of hearing and are hereby received and filed as part of the of- ficial record of this hearing: 1i Letter dated March 3, 1959, signed by Ralph P. and - Josephine Bolton of 4 Huguenot Drive, Larchmont, appointing Hayden W. Smith to represent them at the hearing and to vote against the proposal of zoningthe Guadagnolo property and other adjoining parcel or parcels for commercial use. 2) Letter dated March 6, 1959, signed by W. G. Massey, Jr, of 290 Weaver Street, Larchmont, protesting the proposed upzoning of any and all property in the Town which is fully developed or "built-up" -- (R 6 and R 10 zones}. 3) Letter dated March 7, 1959, signed by Julian E. and Phyllis Bers of 9 Lafayette Road, Larch- mont, protesting the proposed down-zoning of the area bounded by North Chatsworth Avenue, Madsion, Garfield, and Adams Streets, 4) Letter dated March 9, 1959, signed by George B. Butcher, President, by order of the Board of Directors of the Murdock Woods Association, Inc., requesting the establishment of an R 25 residence district having 25, 000 square feet with a minimum street line frontage of 150 feet for the Murdock Woods area. 5) Letter dated March 11, 1959, signed by Joseph W. Gleicher, President, Joseph W. Gleicher Co. , Inc. , 55 Liberty Street, New York 5, New York, pro- testing the proposed upzoning of that property known as Glen Rock Estates. ADJOURNMENT The Supervisor, remarking that the hour was growing late, inquired whether there was any one present wishing to be heard who had not had an opportunity to speak and since there were none, on motion by Councilman Kane, seconded by Councilman Brush, it was unanimously RESOLVED that this hearing be and it hereby is declared adjourned and that decision be and it hereby is reserved, ti To le