Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973_04_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD APRIL 25, 1973, IN THE AUDITO- RIUM OF THE WEAVER STREET FIREHOUSE, WEAVER STREET AND EDGE- WOOD AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Richard F. Eggers, Chairman Mr. E. Robert Wassman Mr. Donald D. Geary, Jr. Mr. Andrew W. Boraczek Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector Mr. Wassman arrived to hear applications 3 and 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the Special Meeting of February 8, 1973 and the Regular Meeting of March 28, 1973 were presented and on motion duly made and seconded, ap- proved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING The Chairman declared the hearing open and the Sec- retary presented for the record the affidavit of publication of the notice of hearing. Mr. Eggers asked the Secretary to read the first application. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 375 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Guy Hoffman for modifi- cation of Article IV Section 421.4 Walls and Fences of the Zoning Ordinance which restricts heights of fences in a Residential District to 4 feet so as to permit the installation of 40 lin. ft. of 4'6" high solid wood fence along the southerly property line on the premises located at 47 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218 Parcel 399 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Hoffman presented his application to the Board C and stated that he had replaced the existing fence. The applicant said he was not aware that there was a law regulating the size of fences and he had checked with his next door neighbor before he installed the fence. Mr. Hoffman's neighbor expressed the opinion that to their knowledge the fence could be installed up to 6 feet. Mr. Hoffman said that he had purchased the house about a year ago and at that time there was an existing fence completely around the property. It was pointed out that the fence in the rear is approximately 6 to 7 feet high and the applicant said he intends to repair it. The Chairman questioned the applicant as to his rea- sons for wanting his property completely fenced in and Mr. Hoffman said he wanted to keep the stray dogs from the neighborhood out of his yard as they had an infant child. The applicant further stated that the previous existing fence was in bad shape and he wanted to fix it. Mr. Hoffman, also, said that the site in question was at the corner where they sit and they wanted to hide the view of the rear of a garage. After further discussion a vote was taken on the application and the result was as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Aye Commissioner Geary - Aye Commissioner Boraczek - Nay Commissioner Hardesty - Aye The application was therefore granted and the fol- lowing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Guy Hoffman were served with a Notice of Violation for the erect- tion of 40 lin. ft. of 4'6" high wooden fence along the southerly side of the pro- perty on the premises located at 47 West Brookside Drive and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218 Parcel 399; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has issued such Violation on the ground that the erec- tion of said fence violated Article IV Sec- tion 421.4 Walls and Fences of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Guy Hoffman have sub- mitted an application to this Board for a variance on the ground of practical dif- ficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. Applicant replaced an exist- :ing fence which was in bad con- dition and was ignorant of the law regulating fences. 2. The applicant wants to keep the stray dogs from the neigh- borhood out of the yard as they have an infant child. 3. The site in question was in the corner where they sit and they wanted to hide the view of the rear of a garage. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plan, 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 granted the ap- plication on the following grounds: (a) That there are special cir- cumstances and conditions apply- ing to the land and/or building for which a variance is sought, which circumstances and/or con- ditions have not resulted from any acts of the applicant subse- quent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the aforesaid circum- stances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. The applicant re- placed an existing fence and there is presently a fence in the rear 6 to 7 feet in height. 2. That said circum- stances or conditions are such that the par- ticular application of the Ordinance with respect to Article IV Section 421.4 Walls and Fences would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land and/or building and that for these reasons the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and/or build- ing and that the vari- ance as granted by this ' 4 Board is the minimum adjustment that will accomplish this pur- pose. (c) That the granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted to the applicant and that Article IV Section 421.4 Walls and Fences be varied and modified so as to allow the erection of 40 lin. ft. of 4'6" high wooden fence along the southerly side of the property on the premises located at 47 West Brook- side Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 218 Parcel 399 in strict conformance with plans filed with this application, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance where a variance is granted the applicant shall obtain a building permit within three months of the filing of this Resolution with the Town Clerk. The build- ing permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and com- pleted within two years of the date of said permit. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 376 Application of Ford Leasing Development Co. for modi- fication of Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Regu- lations for Non-Residential District for a "B" Busi- ness District so as to allow the construction of a parking deck over the existing used car lot which will provide a building coverage of approximately 85% instead of the maximum required building cover- age of 25% on the premises located on the Boston Post Road (known as 1 Main Street, New Rochelle) and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 503 Parcel 117 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Arden Rathkopf, an Attorney of 20 Pratt Boule- vard, Glen Cove, New York represented the applicant, Ford Leasing Development Co. and stated that they had made an application to the City of New Rochelle Zoning Board which would be heard on May 8, 1973. Mr. Rathkopf said that if New Rochelle does not grant permission they would be unable to construct the addition as the portion of the lot that Is in the Town of Mamaroneck is only 15%. The applicant pointed out that there are practical difficulties in the peculiar shape and small size of the lot and because of the fact that the Town only allows a 25% coverage whereas New Rochelle al- lows a 100% coverage for a parking structure. Mr. Rathkopf, also, stated that the use would be compat- ible to the other uses in the area and the deck would be used for the storage of cars. Mr. Eggers requested that a vote be taken on the ap- plication but the decision be reserved until after the New Rochelle hearing. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the third application. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 377 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hirschmann for modification of Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Permitted Uses in an R-7.5 One Family Residence Dis- trict so as to permit the conversion of the one fam- ily dwelling unit into two dwelling units in a one family Residential District on the premises located at 7 Leafy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Parcel 480 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnec- essary hardship. Mrs. Hirschmann, the applicant, explained to the Board that she had obtained the services of an At- torney who had asked if the application could be adjourned until he was able to accumulate more writ- ten information. Mr. Eggers said he saw no reason why the case could not be heard now. Mrs. Hirschmann presented the application to the Board and said she had no intention of requesting a permanent classification for a two family dwelling and that they had purchased the property in December of 1971. The applicant said that her husband is a Patent Attorney who works mainly at home and in 1972 Mr. Hirschmann had a coronary attack and other (tt � M complications and finally the amputation of his right leg. Mrs. Hirschmann said they then decided because of Mr. Hirschmann's inability to climb stairs to shift his den to the street floor temporarily and installed a kitchen on the second floor where plumb- ing had previously been installed. Mrs. Hirschmann stated that when Mr. Hirschmann was able to reoccupy his regular office area they wanted to use the kit- chen on the second floor and they would not have to negotiate the curved stairs too often. The applicants had hoped that during Mr. Hirschmann's recuperation period they might temporarily rent the second floor to a man or a couple so that in an emer- gency there would be a strong man in the house and they might retrieve a small part of the money that the illness had cost them. Mrs. Hirschmann said the house has 12 rooms in all and they are the sole occupants beside an occasional handyman. Mrs. Jean Putnam of 10 Leafy Lane said she was sorry for the Hirschmanns but was against turning the house into a two family dwelling and what guarantee would Mrs. Hirschmann have when she wanted to get the ten- ants out that it would not prove difficult. Mrs. Putnam said that the parking on the street at pre- sent is miserable and the Hirschmanns should have looked into it before they went to the expense of adding the kitchen. Dr. Edward Ladin of 2 Leafy Lane said he too sympa- thized with the Hirschmanns and spoke about the two family homes on Myrtle Boulevard and Murray Avenue. Dr. Ladin stated that if the variance is allowed precedent will be set for future two family residences and that Mr. Hirschmann being a lawyer should have been aware that he was in violation of the law. Mr. Eggers explained that each application is heard on its own merit and the Zoning Board does not estab- lish precedents. Mr. Neal Spencer of 8 Leafy Lane expressed his con- cern for the fifteen small children in the neighbor- hood who would be affected by the increase in traf- fic. Mr. Carl Cordes of 65 Edgewood Avenue said that he felt the houses on Leafy Lane which is a dead end street were completely different from the building sites on Murray Avenue and he too thought that Mr. Hirschmann as a lawyer should have been aware of the law. The Chairman pointed out that it was perfectly legal for residents to have more than one kitchen. /4 33 After further discussion the Chairman asked for a short recess and when the Board returned Mr. Cola- bella of 6 Leafy Lane said that when he had purchased his house he was told there were no multi-family dwellings on the street. Mr. Colabella questioned as to whether the Zoning Board could do anything about forcing Real Estate Agents to make prospective buyers aware of multi-family dwellings in the neigh- borhood but Mr. Eggers explained that this Board had no jurisdiction and it would be either up to the local Real Estate Board or the Town Board. A vote was taken on the application and the result was as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Nay Commissioner Wassman - Nay Commissioner Geary - Nay Commissioner Boraczek - Nay Commissioner Hardesty - Nay The application was therefore denied and the follow- ing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hirschmann have submitted an application for a build- ing permit to the Building Inspector for the conversion of a one family dwelling into two dwelling units in a one family Residential District together with plans; 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 Mama- roneck with particular reference to Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Permitted Uses in an R-7.5 One Family Residence District of the Zoning Ordinance which does not permit two dwelling units in a one family Residential District on the premises lo- cated at 7 Leafy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 126 Parcel 485; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Hirschmann have submitted to this Board an applica- tion for a variance on the ground of prac- tical difficulty and/or unnecessary hard- ship for the following reasons: 1. Because of Mr. Hirschmann's illness the applicants wanted during his recuperation period to temporarily rent the second floor to a man or couple so that I in an emergency there would be a strong man in the house. 2. The extra income would help retrieve a small part of the money that the illness had cost. 3. When Mr. Hirschmann would be able to reoccupy his regular office area they could use the kitchen on the second floor and they would not have to negotiate the curved stairs too often. 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 denied the ap- plication for the following reasons: 1. That there were no special circumstances or conditions ap- plying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circum- stances or conditions are peculiar to such land and which do not apply generally to land in the district. 2. That the facts and circum- stances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive him of the reasonable use of the land. 3. That the granting of the vari- ance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and would be injurious to the neighborhood and detrimental to the public welfare. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk in accordance with Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the last application. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 378 Application of Mr. and Mrs. H. Werner for modifica- tion of Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Residence District Regulations for an R-20 Residential Dis- trict and Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Per- mitted Accessory Uses of the Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the construction of a one family dwell- ing having a rear yard of 15 feet instead of the required minimum rear yard of 40 feet and to allow the construction of a family swimming pool to be located in the front yard 6 feet from the proposed dwelling instead of the required 15 feet on the premises located at Hilltop Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 228 Parcel 75 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Eggers pointed out that this application had been heardand approved about four months ago but the plan had been revised to show a much smaller house and the new owners of the property were fil- ing the new application. Mr. Arthur Finn of 25 Stoneyside Drive, Larchmont, New York,who istheArchitect, presented the appli- cation to the Board and stated that the situation of the Werners had changed and they had decided to build a smaller house. Mr. Finn pointed out that even though the proposed house will cover less ground the setbacks are still the same as previously requested. The Board pointed out that the prior application had been granted with the request that the applicant amend the plan to show the building located a minimum distance of 5 feet from the front property line without extending any further in the rear. Mr. Joseph Someck of 11 York Road, presented a letter to the Board written by Mrs. Someck. Mr. Geary read the letter in which Mrs. Someck stated that when the previous hearing was heard they were out of Town and unable to be present. Mrs. Someck said in her letter that they are the only property owners directly affected because if the variance is allowed Mr. Werner will be building 15 feet from the Someck's property line instead of the 40 feet as required and it will deteriorate the value of their property. In her letter Mrs. Someck pointed out that they had lived in their house for 15 years and did not understand why the Werners could not build a house designed to fit the property and still comply with the Zoning law. Mrs. Someck further went on in her letter to say that her second reason for object- ing to the application was the unusual large area of blacktop planned which would be very close to their property and an eyesore when they sat on their terrace. Mr. Carl Ronconi of 4 Hilltop Road stated that he objected to the swimming pool being placed in the front yard 5 feet from the Town Conservation area and in most areas swimming pools are placed in the rear yard. Mr. Ronconi said that people come from all over to look at the beauty of the old mill site and he did not see how the pool could be built adja- cent to the brook. Mr. Ronconi further said that by allowing the pool to be placed in the front yard it would affect the aesthetic value of his property. Mr. Thomas Hennessy of 3 Ridgway Road said his views were the same as Mr. Ronconi's and the value of the properties in such an attractive area would go down. Mr. Hermino Traviesas of 5 Hilltop Road said he was not against the application because he thought it was more attractive than the previous plan and he was confident the Werner's would only build something "attractive". Mr. Traviesas stated that he did not think the pool would be a problem if properly screened. Mr. Finn stated that the Werner's intended to screen the pool and wanted to rebuild the grist mill with a brick facing. Mr. Finn further said that the house according to the new plan would be kept away from the property line and the pool would hardly be seen. After further discussion a vote was taken on the ap- plication and the result was as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Aye Commissioner Wassman - Nay Commissioner Geary - Nay Commissioner Boraczek - Nay Commissioner Hardesty - Nay The application was therefore denied and the follow- ing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. H. Werner have sub- mitted an application for a building per- mit to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of a one family dwelling having a rear yard of 15 feet and the construction of a family swimming pool to be located in the front yard 6 feet from the proposed dwelling together with plans; 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 Mama- roneck with particular reference to Ar- ticle IV Section 410 Schedule of Residence District Regulations for an R-20 Residen- tial District which requires a minimum rear yard of 40 feet and Article IV Sec- tion 410 Schedule of Permitted Accessory Uses which requires accessory structures be located in the rear yard a minimum of 15 feet from all structures on the premises located at Hilltop Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 228 Parcel 75; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. H. Werner have sub- mitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical dif- ficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. The Board had approved a previous application but the applicant revised the plan to reduce the size of the house. 2. Because of the topography and shape of the lot the proposed structure is designed to continue the natural appearance of the rock. 3. The pool is placed at the proposed location to take advan- tage of the sun and will be closed from the street by planting. 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 denied the ap- plication on the following grounds: 1. The revised plan would make the swimming pool more difficult to screen due to the elimination of the southerly wing of the dwelling. 2. That the revised plan did not provide for any reduction of the original rear yard vari- ance. 3. That the setback of the nor- therly wing of the dwelling would be closer to the brook line than the original plan. 4. That there were no special • circumstances or conditions ap- . plying to the land for which • the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions are • peculiar to such land and which . do not apply generally to land • in the district. • 5. That the facts and circum- stances claimed by the applicant • to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive • him of the reasonable use of the land. 6. That the granting of the . variance would not be in harmony • with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and • would be injurious to the neigh- . borhood and detrimental to the • public welfare. • FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk in accordance with Section 267 of the Town Law. ADJOURNMENT • There being no further business to come before this meeting it was adjourned at 9:55 P.M. • Rita A. Johnson, Secretary