Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987_04_29 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE Z ONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD ON APRIL 29, 1987 IN THE COURT ROOM - TOWN CENTER 740 WEST BOSTON POST ROAD, MAMARONECK, NEW YORK CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chairwoman Price at 8:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Elaine Price, Chairwoman J. Rene Simon Patrick Kelleher Arthur Wexler Thomas Gunther Also Present: William E. Jakubowski, Building Inspector Jean A. Marra, Recording Secretary Steven M. Silverberg, Counsel to the Town, was called away on a family emergency. APPRGJAL OF THE MINUTES Action on the Minutes of the March 25, 1987 was put over to the May 7th meeting. SCHEDULING Chairwoman Price stated that a Special Meeting would be held on May 7, 1987 to accommodate those applicants who --=- were not heard this evening and that the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals would be held on May 27, 1987; with both meetings to be held in the Court Room. April 29, 1987 At this time, Chairwoman Price announced that due to the lengthy agenda, it was doubtful that all applications would be heard so a Special Meeting was called for May 7th in the Court Room. She also announced that the applications would be heard in the order as they appeared on the agenda with the Board sitting until 11:30 P.M. at which time they would adjourn to the May 7th date. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 708 The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Mr. & Mrs. Uri Adner for modification of Article 89-33 Subsection B (2) (a) and (b) "Construction Requirements for R-10 One Family District" which requires a minimum side yard of 10 feet and a total of both side yards of 25 feet, to allow the construction of a greenhouse and wood deck at the rear of dwelling which will maintain existing nonconforming side yard of 6 feet and a total of both side yards of 18.5 feet. Mr. & Mrs. Adner, of 200 Garden Road, Larchmont, together with their attorney, Stanley Alter, presented their application to construct a greenhouse and wooden deck. Mr. Adner reminded the Board that this matter first appeared before them in September of 1985 and since has gone to court to settle a dispute; which dispute has been settled by the Court in a reciprocal easement agreement. Revised plans were then presented by Mr. Adner and reference was made to notations on the plans which were made by the architect, Richard A. Spinelli. In answer to a question raised by Chairwoman Price, Mr. Adner stated the clearance would be 8 feet 2 inches and he presented photographs of public parking facilities in White Plains which depicted that one clearance was as low as 6 feet 3 inches. - 2 - April 29, 1987 Mr. Paul Kean, of 8 Concord Avenue, Larchmont, appeared on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Leichter, the Plaintiffs in the Court action, and stated it would be premature of the Board to make a decision at this time as a hearing date on this matter has been set for May 18th and the Court has not seen the construction plans for this application and he believed that the Court should be able to see the plans. He was of the opinion that the Court should decide if any of this construction would interfere with the Judge Hopkins' decision and, in particular, the placement of the the Lally columns, to make sure they are in accordance with the Judgment. Mr. Wexler raised the point that the applicant could build but not over the easement area but Mrs. Price offered that the Court may determine that any height is not permitted and she continued by reading a portion of the Judge's decision. Appearing in opposition to the application was Mr. Villalar of 632 Shakers Drive, who recently purchased the home at 198 East Garden and Mr. & Mrs. Barrington, of 145 East Garden who had a fundamental objection to "shoe-horn" expanded living quarters. Also in opposition was the resident of 28 Elsworth Road who thought the application "demeaning to the neighborhood" and Mr. Martin Pearlman of 43 Stonyside Drive, also voiced his objections. Judge Hopkins deleted the stay of this meeting tonight, Mr. Alter stated, adding that the Court was furnished with a copy of the same plans the Board received. He also said there was some question regarding the plans as to whether the building stakes were actually posts. Mr. Kean said he agreed with what the Judge said regarding the applicant being allowed to build on his own property, but added that he could not build illegally. At this time, Mr. Alter offered a transcript of the Court proceedings for the record. - 3 - April 29, 1987 The Chairwoman then inquired exactly on what grounds Mr. Adner was applying for the variance and Mr. Adner stated that a hardship existed because of the nature of his yard which droped 25 feet and he feared for the safety of his children. He added that now he had an additional hardship because of the Court's decision. Mr. Adner's children are 10 and 11 years old, Mr. Kean stated. Mr. Simon asked why the applicant wanted to expand so much since he was just creating problems and Mr. Simon suggested that the addition just be made smaller to which Mr. Adner responded that if he were unable to obtain a variance, he would only have a 12 foot area and that would be too small. At this time, Mrs. Price announced that any anger regarding the Board's decision, should be vented at the Board and not at any neighbors. Thereafter, on motion by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Simon, with Mr. Wexler voting nay, it was resolved that the application, as presented, be denied and the following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Uri Adner have submitted an application to the Building Inspector, together with plans, to allow the construction of a greenhouse and wooden deck at rear of dwelling which will maintain existing nonconforming side yard setback of 6 feet; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article VI Section 89-33, Subsection B (a) and (b) "Construction Require- ments for R-10 One Family Residence District" which requires a minimum side yard of 10 feet and a total of both side yards of 25 feet on the premises located at 200 East Garden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 213 Parcel 98; and - 4 - April 29, 1987 WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Adner have submitted an application for a variance to this Board on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. That due to the topography of the property, the rear yard is the only practical location for a deck. 2. The proposed greenhouse would provide an eating area for use by the family. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board hereby denies the appli- cation on the following grounds: 1. The applicants failed to show that the addition to the dwelling could not be made smaller. 2. That the practical difficulties and/or unnecessary hardships applying to the land for which the variance is sought have not been established. 3. That said circumstances or conditions are not such that the particular application of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to Article VI Section 89-33 Subsection B (2) (a) and (b) "Construction Requirements for an R-10 One Family Residence District" would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. 4. That the encroachment would be too substantial. 5. That the granting of the variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and would be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. - 5 - April 29, 1987 Mr. Gunther then questioned if the Board could grant a partial variance to which the Chairwoman said the application could be resubmitted as the Board's decision had nothing to do with the Judgment or the Court's decision. * * * * * APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 759 The Recording Secretary read the application as follows: Application of Coughlin Realty Corporation for modification of Article VII "Construction Requirements for "B" Business District" Section 89-41 Subsection A (3) which permits a maximum building coverage of 25%; Subsection B (3) which requires a minimum rear yard of 25 feet with a 10 foot wide evergreen screen; Subsection C which permits a maximum floor area of 50%; Subsection E which requires a minimum of 70 on-site parking spaces; and amended to include Article XI Section 89-67 E which requires parking areas to be laid out so that vehicles will not be required to back into public highways when leaving the parking area; to allow the construction of a two-story office building and off-street parking, having a building coverage of 67%, a rear yard setback to garage of 0 feet along rear property line, a floor area of 13,982 square feet or 186% and on-site parking for 36 cars, five of which have dimensions of less than 9'x 20' , and an additional 32 off-site parking spaces, on the premises located at 178 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 627 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. At this time, Mr. Simon stated that he withdrew himself from any participation in this application due to personal matters and Mr. Wexler also excused himself from any participation in the deliberations. The withdrawal of two Board members created a substantial hardship on this application, Mr. Donald Mazin offered, asking if there was a provision for substitutes to which Mrs. Price stated there wasn't. - 6 - April 29, 1987 Chairwoman Price noted that Mr. Ferrarone, from Lane Appraisals, had complied fully with the information she requested at the last meeting and Mr. Ferrarone stated he would be willing to answer any questions the Board had. A letter from the Larchmont Chamber of Commerce was presented by Mr. Mazin; wherein, it was stated that..."the Chamber looks favorably on the proposed construction of the Coughlin building... ." Another letter from the Vice President of Larchmont Federal Savings and Loan was presented by Mr. Mazin, wherein it was stated that ..."it is my opinion that the cost to build a 7,500 square foot building would make it economically unfeasable and consequently not a prudent investment. I believe Mr. Ferrarone is correct when he states that a 13,000 to 14,000 square foot building is economically sound and one that we would be most interested in financing..." Mr. Mazin then submitted a letter from the owners of 2 Washington Square (Vermilion Bldg. Corp.) , wherein it was stated that .. ."Coughlin Realty has shown us their building JAW plans.. .. and we are in favor of this project.. .." The Master Plan Update was referred to by Mr. Mazin and he proceeded to state that the subject premises and the surrounding B District neighborhood is located in "Planning Unit #2 (Madison Avenue/Myrtle Blvd.)" and the Master Plan concluded that "a significant amount of new development within the said area can be accommodated without causing noticeable traffic congestion." Mr. Henry Meltzer, the architect for the project, presented a plan showing the average building coverages for the entire square block area versus the proposed building and noted the proposed building coverage was 2.28% less. A hand-constructed block model was then offered by Mr. Meltzer which showed the proposal was not "over building" for the site. In opposition to this application was Mr. Stanley Bierman, the attorney for the Clock Tower Building, and he stated that he was unable to view the Lane Appraisal as it was submitted so late. - 7 - April 29, 1987 Mr. Bierman commented that A) Hardship, B) Only feasible alternative, C) Minimum relief needed and D) Applicant did not contribute to hardship, have not been demonstrated by the applicant. The Lane Appraisal was duplicated by Mr. Bierman and he discussed his version of the building costs for a building requiring no zoning variances versus the building that is being proposed. He said he spoke with several builders regarding the various building costs but they were unable to attend the meeting. At this time, Chairwoman Price requested a copy of what Mr. Bierman was reading from and Mr. Bierman replied that he would furnish her with a copy no later than Friday. In answer to a question posed by Mrs. Price, Mr. Bierman submitted the name Louis P. Grasso, Grasso and Sons, Inc. , Builders, and Andrew Fretmarx, Architect. Mr. Bierman then presented his own hand-made model of the proposed Coughlin building and stated that the applicants were not asking for a zoning variance, they were asking that the zoning laws be changed. The applicant has failed to meet his burden of proof on the four criteria, Mr. Bierman offered. The health and welfare of the Clock Tower tenants was in jeopardy from the car fumes, stated Mr. Bierman, adding that fire hazard was another consideration as well as offering a haven for crime and he also pointed out that vehicle and traffic safety would decrease in the area. In conclusion, he said that the evidence was woefully weak to justify granting a variance of this magnitude. Mr. Bernard Axelrod, of 2 Washington Square, appeared in opposition to the Coughlin proposal and submitted a petition signed by six residents of the apartment complex that is located directly behind the subject property. He stated that the residents were elderly and unable to attend the meeting and that he was appearing on their behalf to oppose the building plan. - 8 - April 29, 1987 • Mr. Axelrod then read a very lengthy letter in opposition to the Coughlin application and reiterated the points he made at prior Board meetings. He agreed that the present property had been allowed to deteriorate but he said that any new, clean building would be an improvement and it could be built without obstructing light, air, sun and space as this one does. The applicant has a clear burden of proof as to why the zoning laws should be set aside, Mr. Axelrod stated, adding that if Coughlin built within the Building Code, there would be no objection. I The beauty parlor owner at 176 Myrtle Blvd. said the entire area was a big parking lot with the magnificent traffic system that had traffic backed up constantly and the last thing that was needed in the area was more traffic! The owner of the Clock Tower Building said he had no objection to a building being constructed but he wanted it to conform to the zoning laws and questioned why the Town I II. did not make this extra parking area available to the local merchants. Mr. Mazin responded to Mr. Bierman's comments and stated 0 that none of his testimony was furnished by an expert and asked the Board to disregard it. Mr. Mazin offered that a "legal" building, or one which conformed to the zoning, would still need 36 parking spaces in order to comply with the parking requirements. He added that the extra parking area would benefit the Town as well as the residents since it could be used overnight and on the weekends by permit parking, but it would only come into being if the Coughlin application was approved. A traffic study was submitted to the Planning Board, stated Mr. Mazin, and it was determined that the proposal would not be adding to the problem; it would reduce it because additional parking would be added. The exhaust from cars was previously discussed, Mr. Mazin I IL. said, adding that studies were made and the reports were submitted so he would not address that issue again. - 9 - April 29, 1987 Mr. Mazin concluded that "this was a lovely, attractive building and an asset to the community. This is not a profit-making venture, he said; this is for a man's own building, for his own business, in his own town — this is a quality situation." Mr. Norman Sherman of the Larchmont Chamber of Commerce stated that the area would be upgraded by the character of the proposed building and he thoroughly endorsed it. Mr. Burton Meighan of 14 North Chatsworth Avenue stated that he looked at the plans for the proposed building and he thought it was a marvelous thing. Mr. John Coughlin of 17 North Chatsworth Avenue stated that the applicant was investing over two and one-half million dollars into Larchmont and that fact should be taken into consideration when the Board mades its determination. Ms. Maureen Morris, a local realtor, stated that this property was available for eight years before Mr. Coughlin - purchased it and to date he has invested a lot of money in it. Mrs. Mary Carlson, of the Planning Board, announced that on the environmental issues, the vote was 4 to 3 -- it was not unanimously approved. She added that the reference made to the Master Plan had to do with the assemblage of parcels currently available in that area, not just that particular parcel. It was also noted by Mrs. Carlson that the Clock Tower Building was constructed prior to any kind of zoning requirements and the other buildings in the area were built under the old zoning regulations. A speaker said the Board should "feel" right regarding this application because their feelings should tell them that this application feels good. Mr. Ferrarone of Lane Appraisals reiterated his findings for the Board members. - 10 - April 29, 1987 After which, Mrs. Price raised a question regarding the legalities of setting a precedent to which Samuel Sharpe, an attorney in Donald Mazin's office, explained the difference between "sameness" and "similarness" and quoted several court cases to substantiate his findings. Chairwoman Price stated that the documents submitted for the Coughlin application had to be reviewed and a decision would be rendered at the Special Meeting on May 7th. ADJOURNMENT There being a Special Meeting on May 7, 1987 to accommodate those cases which could not be heard this evening, on motion by Mr. Kelleher, seconded by Mr. Gunther, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 P.M. • A%-e\-/ ii%//itic rL/ Jean A. Marra Recording Secretary • - 11