Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979_08_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD AUGUST 22, 1979, IN THE COURT HOUSE, 1201 PALMER AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK, LARCHMONT, NEW YORK. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:15 P .M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. E . Robert Wassman , Chairman Mr. Andrew W. Boraczek Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty Mr. Peter G. Moore Absent: Mr. Lawrence G. Bodkin , Jr. Also present: Mr. William Paonessa , Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of July 25, 1979 were presented and on motion duly made and seconded approved as corrected. PUBLIC HEARING The Chairman declared the hearing open and the Secretary presented for the record the affidavit of publication of the notice of hearing. Mr. Wassman informed the Board and those present that the first item on the agenda was the application of Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Perlman which had been adjourned from the meeting of July 25, 1979. The Chairman stated that the application had been referred back to the Building Inspector for advise as to whether the application was the proper responsibility of the Zoning Board. Mr. Wass- man said he had been informed the application was under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board. CASE 513 Mr. Perlman said they had no alternative to get the vehi- cles off the street and the plan they had followed was the best way without defacing the property. The appli- cant said they did not want the property to look like a giant parking lot and they didn' t want to destroy any trees . Mr. Perlman further said that because the drive- way is narrow it was difficult to get in and out of the cars . The Board questioned Mr. Perlman as to how many cars they are able to put in the garage and Mr. Perlman said they could put two small cars in the garage one behind the other but the van did not fit. Mr. Boraczek asked if the application could be split into two parts. Mr. Hardesty said he was concerned about what could be parked there and if the variance was granted 0 CO if restrictions could be put on the type of vehicles which could be parked. Mr. Wassman said as far as the Board making restrictions as to what could be parked on the property it could be a "condition" of the Resolution. Mr. Perlman said that he leaves early in the morning, his wife uses her car daily and his children both have cars . He further stated that his son uses the van every day and that in bad weather it is extremely difficult to get the cars out. After further discussion the Board voted on the applica- tion in two parts and the result on Part One which was the off-street parking area at the easterly side of the property between the steps and driveway was as follows: Commissioner Wassman - Aye Commissioner Boraczek - Aye Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Moore - Aye The application on Part One was therefore approved with the condition that no boats or commercial vehicles be parked on the property. The vote on Part Two which was the off-street parking area at the southwesterly corner of the property was as follows: Commissioner Wassman - Nay Commissioner Boraczek - Nay Commissioner Hardesty - Nay Commissioner Moore - Nay Part Two of the application was therefore denied and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Perlman have sub- mitted an application to the Building Inspector to allow two off-street parking spaces to be maintained at the front of the property having a 0 ft. setback 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 Ordi- nance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article XI Section 89-67 Layout and Location of Off-street Parking Facilities in a Residential District which requires a mini- mum front setback of 25 ft. and at least 5 ft. from side property line; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Marvin Perlman have sub- mitted an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hard- ship for the following reasons: 1 . Because of the topography of the property the only alternative left to the applicants was to create two non-conspicous paved parking areas. 2. Since the existing driveway is narrow and bound by stone retaining walls with rock ledges and trees abound- ing on the property it is not possible to build a circular drive . 3. When the vehicles were left in the street the applicant received traf- fic tickets and one vehicle was side- swiped. 4. The applicant planned and carried out the construction of the two sepa- rate areas at each end of the property sacrificing convenience with a primary thought in mind to keep the area as attractive if not more so. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans , reviewed the application and has heard all per- sons interested in this application after pub- lication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board granted Part One of the application with a condition and denied Part two on the following grounds : (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land and/or building for which a variance is sought, which circumstances and/or conditions are peculiar to such land and/or buildings in the district and which circumstances have not resulted from any acts of the applicant subse- quent to the date of the Zoning Regula- tions appealed from. (b) That the aforesaid circumstances and/or conditions are as follows : 1 . The proposed area on the easterly side between the steps and driveway and the existing garage and driveway will provide sufficient parking for the applicants four cars . 2. For the reason listed above the Board did not feel that the applicants had sufficient hardship for the second parking area at the southwest cor- ner of the property. FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted to the applicant and that Article XI Section 89-67 Subsection B "Layout and Loca- tion of Off-street Parking Facilities" so as to allow one off-street parking space to be maintained having a 0 ft. setback on the pre- mises located at 43 Stoneyside Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mama- roneck as Block 211 Parcel 40 in strict con- formance with plans filed with this applica- tion, subject to the following conditions , provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. 1 . That no boats or commercial vehi- cles be parked on the property. 2. That the off-street parking area at the southwest corner of the pro- perty be removed. 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 building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed 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 first ap- plication. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 515 Application of Mr. Robert M. Riley for modification of Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B (2) (a) & (3) "Con- struction Requirements for an R-7.5 One Family Residence District" to allow the installation of a roof (awning) over existing wood deck at the rear of the property hav- ing a side yard of 7 ft. instead of the minimum required side yard. of 10 ft. and a rear yard of 16 ft. instead of the minimum required rear yard of 25 ft. on the pre- mises located at 2 Homer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 120 Parcel 1 on the grounds or practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Riley appeared before the Board and said that he had received a variance on May 23, 1979 for the construction of the wood deck and at that time he had inadvertenly failed to insert the possibility of a temporary awning over the deck. The applicant said he did not realize it was necessary to obtain permission for the awning which will only be used from the middle of May to the middle of September. Mr. Riley stated that the awning will be canvas and can be installed or removed in 20 minutes. The applicant said that because of the dampness of the land area under and near the deck they felt the awning was necessary. After further discussion a vote was taken on the appli- cation and the result was as follows: Commissioner Wassman - Aye Commissioner Boraczek - Aye Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Moore - Aye The application was therefore approved and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Robert M. Riley has submitted an application to the Building Inspector to allow the installation of a roof (awning) over the existing wood deck at the rear of the property having a side yard of 7 ft. and a rear yard of 16 ft. 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 Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B (2) (a) & (3) "Construction Requirements for an R-7.5 One Family Residence District" which requires a side yard of 10 ft. and a rear yard of 25 ft. on the premises located at 2 Homer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 120 Parcel 1 ; and WHEREAS, Mr. Robert M. Riley has submitted an application to this Board for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or un- necessary hardship for the following reasons : 1 . The applicant inadvertently omitted inclusion of the temporary canvas awning when he submitted his appli- cation for the variance for the deck. 2. Because of the dampness of the land area under and near the deck :coc - an awning is felt to be necessary. 3. The proposed awning will be can- vas and capable of installation or removal in 20 minutes and will be in place only from the middle of May until the middle of September. 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 granted the appli- cation on the following grounds: (a) That there are special circum- stances and conditions applying to the land and/or building for which a variance is sought, which circum- stances or conditions have not resulted from any acts of the applicant sub- sequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/ or conditions are as follows: 1 . That only a canvas awning be placed over the wood deck. 2. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with res- pect to Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B (2) (a) & (3) "Construction Require- ments for an R-7.5 One Family Residence District" would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is a minimal adjustment that will accom- plish this purpose. 3. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or other- wise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-34 Sub- section B (2) (a) & (3) "Construction Require- ments for an R-7.5 One Family Residence Dis- trict" be varied and modified so as to allow the installation of a canvas roof (awning) over the existing wood deck having a side yard of 7 ft. and a rear yard of 16 ft. on the pre- mises located at 2 Homer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 120 Parcel 1 in strict confor- mance 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 building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed 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 appli- cation. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 516 Application of Mrs . Rose Turco for modification of Ar- ticle VI Section 89-21 Subsection A (1 ) Permitted Uses in an R-6 One Family Residence District which permits one family dwellings only to allow the use of the dwell- ing as a two family dwelling on the premises located at 106 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Parcel 448 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship. Mr. George P. Forbes, Jr. , an Attorney of 7 Woodland Avenue, Larchmont, New York, represented the applicant, Mrs. Rose Turco and presented the Board with an affidavit. Mr. Forbes stated that Mrs. Turco and her late husband had purchased the house sometime in the 40' s and it was a two family house at that time. Mr. Forbes said that the Turcos had rented an apartment from the original owner and at that time there were two separate apartments, one upstairs and one downstairs with separate entrances , door bells , kitchens and living quarters. Mr. Forbes, also, stated that Mrs. Turco said that after they had purchased the house thinking it was a legal two family house they have rented the second apartment to various tenants. Mr. Forbes , also, said that because of ill health Mrs . Turco wants to sell her house but when potential buyers find out there is no certificate of occupancy for a two family house they lose interest. Mr. Forbes presented the Board with a petition signed by about 20 of Mrs. Turco's neighbors stating that they had no objection to the application for the use of the premises as a two family residence. Mr. Forbes, also, presented the Board with a letter from Dr. Alan Siegel , who is Mrs. Turco's physician stating that she is under his care for heart disease and hypertension. After further discussion a vote was taken on the appli- cation and the result was as follows : Commissioner Wassman - Aye Commissioner Boraczek - Aye Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Moore - Aye The application was therefore approved and the follow- ing Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Rose Turco has submitted an ap- plication to the Building Inspector to allow the existing dwelling to be used and occupied as a two family dwelling together with plans; and WHEREAS , the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that Arti- cle IV Section 89-21 Subsection A (1 ) Permitted Uses in an R-6 One Family Residence District which permits one family dwellings only on the premises located at 106 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Parcel 448; and WHEREAS, Mrs . Rose Turco has submitted an ap- plication to this Board for a variance on the ground or practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship for the following reasons: 1 . The house since its construction was at all times occupied by two fami- lies. 2. Because of ill health the appli- cant must sell the house and any po- tential buyers lose interest when they find there is no certificate of occupancy for a two family house. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans , 74C'` ( j 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 appli- cation on the following grounds : (a) That there are special circum- stances and conditions applying to the land and/or building for which a variance is sought, which circum- stances and/or conditions have not resulted from any acts of the appli- cant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows : 1 . Since the house has been used for a long per- iod as a two family resi- dence the neighborhood will not be affected by the grant- ing of the variance. 2. That said circumstances or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with res- pect to Article VI Section 89-21 Subsection A (1 ) Per- mitted Uses in an R-6 One Family Residence District would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is a minimal adjustment that will accomplish this pur- pose. 3. That the granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or other- wise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article IV Section 89-20 Sub- section A (1 ) Permitted Uses in an R-6 One Family Residence District be varied and modi- fied so as to permit the existing dwelling to be used as a two family residence on the premises located at 106 Myrtle Boulevard and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126 Parcel 448 in strict conformance with plans filed with this appli- cation provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck . 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 last appli- cation. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 517 Application of Mr. John Miceli for modification of Arti- cle V Section 89-28 Permitted Uses in a "B" Business Dis- trict which does not permit the storage of contractors equipment and buses in a "B" Business District to allow the continued use of the parcel for the storage of con- tractors equipment and also permit the parking and stor- age of buses on the premises located at 10-12 Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 131 Parcel 18 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Spencer V. Hinckley, an Attorney of 271 North Avenue, New Rochelle, New York represented Mr. Miceli and said that his client' s contract with the present owner of the property is subject to the granting of the variance. Mr. Hinckley stated that in 1961 the owners of the pro- perty, D. F. MacNamee and Co. had been granted a variance for the storage of contractors equipment and Mr. Miceli was requesting a continuation of the use and also the storage of buses . Mr. Miceli in his application said that the surrounding neighborhood has not changed and there is no other reason- able use of the property. The Board questioned as to whether if the variance were to be granted would the property continue to be held in single ownership and would the applicant attempt to trans- fer the variance when the property was sold. After further discussion a vote was taken on the appli- cation and the result was as follows : Commissioner Wassman - Aye Commissioner Boraczek - Aye Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Moore - Aye The application was therefore approved and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. John Miceli has filed an applica- tion so as to allow the continued use of the parcel for the storage of contractors equipment and in addition to permit the parking and stor- age of buses on the premises located in a "B" Business District together with plans; and WHEREAS, the plans submitted failed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mama- roneck with particular reference to Article V Section 89-28 Permitted Uses in a "B" Business District which does not permit the storage of contractors equipment and buses on the premises located at 10-12 Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 131 Parcel 18; and WHEREAS, Mr. John Miceli has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons : 1 . The present owner of the property has been granted a variance to per- mit the storage of contractors equip- ment in 1961 and the conditions under which the original variance was granted have not changed. 2. The property on one side of the lot is used for the storage of equip- ment and buses and on the other side is another equipment yard. 3. In view of the above there is no other reasonable use of the pro- perty. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application, and heard all per- sons interested in this application after pub- lication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds the following: (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land and/or building for which a variance is sought, which circumstances and/or conditions are peculiar to such land and/or buildings and do not apply gen- erally to the land and/or buildings in the district and which circumstances and conditions have not resulted from any acts of the applicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That said circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1 . That the property has been used for the storage of contractors equipment. 2. That the applicant has entered into a conditional contract for the sale of the property with the owner D. F. MacNamee & Co. , Inc. said sale being conditioned upon the granting of a vari- ance so as to permit the continued use of the pro- perty for the storage of contractors equipment. (c) That the granting of this vari - ance 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 and that Article V Section 89-28 Per- mitted Uses in a "B" Business District be varied and modified so as to permit the continued use of the parcel for the storage of contractors equipment and also permit the parking and stor- age of buses on the premises located at 10-12 Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131 Par- cel 18 in strict conformance with plans filed with this application provided that the appli- cant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck and subject to the following con- ditions : 1 . Entire perimeter of proposed par- cels shall be fenced with chain link fence, similar both as to height and type of fence on New York Thruway now in existence on rear lot line. 2. Fence along southerly side line shall be set back at least 4 ft. 6 in. 3. Entire parcel shall be graded with bank gravel with proper provision for adequate drainage. C4. Any flood lighting must be installed under the supervision of the Building Inspector. 5. The curb cut shall be situated so as not to interfere with adjacent property owners or property owners across the street on Valley Place. 6. A radius of at least 8 feet be held to the gate posts from the curb line. 7. All above conditions must be com- plied with before commencing proposed use and throughout entire time of proposed use . 8. This variance is valid solely for a use of the area for a parking lot for storage of contractors equip- ment and storage of buses . 9. No maintenance and or repair work for buses is permitted on the lot. 10. Duration of this variance is to be limited to usage by Mr. John Miceli as the sole owner. 11 . There shall be adequate super- vision when contractor's equipment is being placed on or removed from said lot. 12. Premises shall be kept in neat and orderly manner at all times. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meet- ing it was adjourned at 9:45 P.M. 4 ' ` Rita . Jo s n, Secretary tig 02 0 7 Z-