Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1939_06_06 Town Board Minutes PUBLIC HEARING BY AND BEFORE THE TO'NV BOARD OF THE TOi42V HELD .NNE 6 . 1939 OF MAMARONECK, NEW YORK At the 'dleaver Street Fire .Souse, Town of Mamaroneck, New York The meeting was called to order by Supervisor 1vicCulloch at 8:35 P. Ni. Present : Supervisor McCulloch Councilmen Bates , Griffin, Mandeville, ivieginniss Absent : None The presence was also noted of Town Clerk Payne, Town Attor- ney Delius and the following members of the Board of Appeals for Zoning: A. Stirling Smith, Chairman; Frederick G. Smith, and Orson A. Raynor . The Town Clerk read the affidavit of publication of the notice of the public hearing. The Supervisor stated that the Town of Mamaroneck was very fortunate in having a good zoning board. He explained that they have been working for over a year on the suggested changes to the zoning ordinance and zoning map and have presented them to the Town Board for consideration. He stated that the reading of the entire suggestions would be dispensed with and asked if there was any change any one wished to discuss in particular. Mr. Leo Fish, 8 Huguenot Drive , Larchmont, asked what the changes were . The Supervisor informed him that there were changes in the apartment house zoning, adding to the apartment house zones and calling for the garden type rather than the usual apartment which may be built 10 feet from the street line . He explained that near the Pelham-Port Chester Parkway property the section zoned for apartments now goes up to Lafayette Road. He thereupon opened the _meeting for comments upon any phase of the proposed. changes. Mr. miontanye, 10 Lafayette Road, Larchmont , stated that he lived. directly opposite the part which the Board of Appeals pro- poses to change from trA" to "B", and that about two years ago when he purchased his property, he was informed that he was protected by the zoning laws and by his deed. "A real estate man informed me that the zoning ordinance was more or less of a guarantee ", he said. He stated that he could see no necessity for the change and voiced his protest against zoning this property for apartments . Mr. Cornelius Van Buren, a real estate broker of Larchmont, speaking for Ivir. Piax Hoffman, of 2 Lafayette Road, who was out of town and unable to attend the hearing, voiced the same protest and objections as Mr. Iviontanye . On his own behalf Mr. Van Buren stated that he had sold all of the lots on which the houses were now erected on. Lafayette Road and at that time the owners understood thoroughly and felt sure that the zoning would remain. residential. Mr. Leo Fish stated that he was one of the first settlers in that part of the unincorporated section some ten years ago, that he had purchased his property from the New Rochelle Realty Company and that in his deed it was understood that the zoning in that particular part of the town was for residences only. He registered his protest along with Ivir. iviontanye and stated that he definitely felt that apartments should_ not be allowed north of the parkway, because it would affect property values . Mr. A. Stirling Smith, Chairman of the Board of Appeals, explained that this section is absolutely unsuitable for residential purposes,because it is very low land. The Zoning Board, therefore , figured that it was more suitable for apartment houses and would be a barrier for further encroachment of apartment houses in residen- tial areas, he said. Mr. B. B. Neal, 9 Normandy Road, also speaking for Mr. C . 'vd. Parr, 7 Normandy Road; lair. and yirs. Smalley, 6 Normandy Road; and Mr. and Mrs. Hope, b Normandy Road., all of whom have fine homes ad- joining the section which the Zoning Board proposes to change to "B" Residential, stated that they all had put a lot of money into their homes and had been assured that it was zoned "A". He said that he was absolutely against this change and "would fight the thing to see that it did. not go through. " He declared that all of these property owners paid approximately $1,200 a year in taxes and that all of them were absolutely against this change . Mr.T. Roosevelt Allen, owner of three houses adjoining this section, namely, at 100 P-ladison Avenue and at 4 and 6 Lafayette Road, inquired who owned the property in this section and whether or not there were any contracts to sell the land. The Supervisor informed him that the Town of Mamaroneck owns some of the land and has no contracts to sell any of the land it owns. P12. Allen said that he was "amazed that the Zoning Board would make such a change without getting the approval of the pro- perty owners . " N.:r. Smith explained that the Zoning Board had been studying these suggestions for about fifteen months and had held many meet- ings, all of the members serving without pay. he said that the purpose of the hearing tonight was to decide whether or not their suggestions should be accepted. He repeated that they had en- deavored to establish a barrier between the residential section and the apartment house section. He said that they had debated the question for two or three months and had decided that rather than have apartment houses go on up North Chatsworth Avenue and Murray Avenue, this particular section would be suitable for apartment houses of the garden type . He explained that near the railroad there is a section zoned commercial, a section zoned industrial and. then a two-family house section, and it was their plan to keep two-family 'houses out of this particular block in order to protect the residential section. dr. Allen remarked that unless some taxpayers had been pre- sent to oppose this change, then it would have gone through without any opposition. He said that it was "an insult " to propose such a change in a residential section. Mr. Smith replied that in that particular section there are absolutely no first class residences at the present time and very near there are old single family houses and two-family houses. !,,Ir. Fish stated that there are quite a few empty lots on Huguenot Drive and if this particular block were zoned for apart- ments, they would never get any one to build on the lots. Mr. Allen pointed out that any apartment today represents the minimum type of construction and gave as an example the Petigor apartments which he stated "have ruined the high school. " He said that this change in zoning would encourage apartments to run up North Chatsworth Avenue . He suggested that the Town Board follow the example of the Board. of Trustees of the Village of Larchmont by buying this property for a buffer and maintaining it as a park, thus preventing apartment house development . He presented a petition signed by twenty-five (25) residents of this section, representing approximately ;1;400,000 of fine residential property. Mr. Frederick G. Smith, a member of the Board of Appeals, registered his protest against apartment houses by stating that the apartment house influx should be stopped at the parkway and should not go north of that . he said that that was the intention at the time the original zoning ordinance was adopted and that he believed that they ought to maintain the parlvray as a check against apartments. Mr. David ' '. 'V'Jilliams of 4 Huguenot Drive stated that he thought the parkway should be the line for stopping apartrents and that he did not want to see the value of his home depreciate any more. The Supervisor, in summing up the discussion on this pro- - posed change in the ordinance, stated that it had very definitely been established that those present at the meeting did not want the barrier for apartments established the other side of the parkway. Mr. J. Henry Esser, representing the Bermont Realty Company, filed a protest against the proposed change in zoning of their property from "D" Commercial to "A" Residential. He explained that the pro- perty is located near the railroad tracks and that the nearest street is Palmer Avenue on which- it has no frontage. He stated that no one has ever been able to use it for industrial or business purposes and that in his opinion no one would ever build a one-family house on it. He -requested that the Board either leave the property zoned as it is or give them a use that is sensible, so that some one can use it for something. He added that the Petigor apartments have killed "A" Residential zoning on Palmer Avenue. I,Nhen asked by the Supervisor what other zoning he would suggest for the property, Mr. Esser had no suggestion to make and recommended that it be left zoned commercial as it is at the present time . Kr. A. Stirling Smith pointed out that the property referred to by Mr. Esser is situated behind a piece of property 100 feet in depth fronting on 'Neaver Street, which is zoned "A" Residential . The Bermont Realty Compan property, therefore , is behind "A" Re- sidential property and °pA ` Residential property predominates on that block, he said. He explained that their reason for- changing the zoning was to protect the residents on Harmon Drive and in Howell Park from business on Palmer Avenue . Stores are going in on Palmer Avenue in the Village of Mfamaroneek, he added, and the Board of Ap- peals thought it best to prevent that in the Town. Mr. Orson A. Raynor, a member of the Board of Appeals, pointed out that if you go to Pelham,you will find high class residences near the railroad tracks, and if you leave this property zoned as it is, there is no possibility of any industry going into it, because they could not get access to it . if it is zoned "A", he explained, some builder will build houses 'there, which will lift it up to the highest grade of zoning. He stated that if it is left "D" as it is now, eventually business will have to be permitted on Palmer Avenue . P4r. V. J. Kraft of 245 Palmer Avenue , Larchmon.t, stated that he did not believe that that section of Palmer Avenue would ever be used for residential purposes for the next hundred years. He re- commiended that it be changed to business on Palmer Avenue from the Town of Praraaroneck-Village of Mamaroneck boundary line to 'Jeaver Street . Mr. Frederick G. Smith stated that a plot zoned "A" is owned by ivir. Petigor on Weaver Street and unless this piece of property y owned by the Bermont Realty Company is changed from " " to "A" el assi- fication, it would not be very long until P..r. Petigor would take ad- vantage of anything he could to have the zoning changed on his pro- perty. 'Wr. iVlartin King of b27 Munro Avenue, Mamaroneck, inquired why the area around the 'Ninged Foot Golf Club had been changed. from "F`1' Unclassified to "A" Residential. The Supervisor explained that when property is zoned "F" Unclassified., the owner can apply to the Town Board for a change in zoning without applying to the Board of Appeals, and the Town wanted this section protected as "A" Residential so that then requests for changes would have to go before the Zoning Board of Appeals rather than the Town Board. Dr. Meade, owner of property described as Section 4, Block 39, Lots 3A and 2, about 800 feet from Hormnocks Road on the Boston Post Road, opposite uVeaver Street , requested that this property be left unclassified rather than changed to business. Mr. Raynor explained that the Board of Appeals was trying to fix definite zoning classifications rather than leave certain areas unclassified. Mr. George W. Burton of 34 Edgewood Avenue, Larclmnont, stated that nobody has ever been more interested in zoning than he has and that when the original zoning ordinance was adopted, it was felt that the less business property that was zoned at one time the better off the territory would be . The Town Board could then decide whether or not business would be detrimental for the district , he said. He advised. the Board to leave as much property zoned "F" Unclassified as possible . He stated that he approve of what others had said concerning the proposed change in zoning in the Fifth Avenue section and that the original plan was to have the Pelham-Port Chester Park- way as the line for apartments. He then spoke concerning the property owned by the Bermont Realty Company and stated that Palmer Avenue is not destined for "A" Residential zoning and that certainly his property near the railroad tracks is not residential. He said that it is assessed for ` 14,000 and treat he would take $8,500 for it . He requested that the zoning be left as it is at present . PrTr. Allen, again referring to the proposed change in zoning in the Madison Avenue and Fifth Avenue section, inquired what dis- position the Town Board would ;make of this . The Supervisor assured him that the Board would consider all the protests that had been made at the hearing before making their decision. Mr. Thomas B. Sutton, real estate broker of Larchmont, in- quired whether or not the plot of land directly opposite the houses on Lafayette Road would be left "Att Residential. The Supervisor informed 'him that that _clot was now zoned "A" and that no change was being proposed. Mr. A. Stirling Smith called to the attention of the meet- ing that 100 feet of property on Madison Avenue is now zoned "B" Residential which permits partment houses, and_ if the :proposed changes are not adopted for this district, that piece of property will still remain "BPP. Mr. Allen then suggested that this property be changed to "A" Residential. The Supervisor explained that before that could be done, another hearing would have to be held. Mr. Allen inquired about two-family zoning in the Fifth Avenue section. Mr. Smith explained that they proposed to zone that section abutting on the parkway near the New Rochelle boundary line and Fifth Avenue for two-family houses. Mr. Allen expressed approval of that plan. Miss Mildred Sanford, real estate broker of Larchmont, stated that that seemed to be a logical place for two-family houses. The Supervisor thanked the Board of Appeals for their work in connection with the zoning ordinance and stated that in his opinion they deserved to receive the thanks of the citizens of the town. Mr. Sutton moved a vote of thanks to the Board of Appeals for their excellent work. Im Mr. Williams on behalf of the people who signed the petition protesting against the proposed change to "B" zoning near Lafayette Road recommended that the apartment house section be kept south of the proposed Pelham-Port Chester Parkway. The Supervisor again called to the attention of the meeting that part of the section near Lafayette Road, Lester Place and Madison Avenue is already zoned for apartments and if the Town Board does not adopt the proposed changes suggested by the Zoning Board, then these pieces of property will have to be left as they are, namely, "B" Residential, until another hearing has been advertised and held at some later time , in order to change it to "A" Residential. I,Ir. Sutton suggested that the Town Board advertise and hold a hearing to change these plots back to "A" Residential zoning. The Supervisor asked if there was any one else who wished to speak concerning the proposed changes. There being no one the Supervisor declared the hearing closed at 10 P. I.I. and the meeting adjourned.