Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1971_05_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD MAY 26, 1971, IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK POLICE STATION, 11 EDGEWOOD AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:25 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Richard F. Eggers, Chairman Mr. E. Robert Wassman Mr. Price H. Topping Mr. Donald D. Geary, Jr. Mr. George P. K. Ching Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector PUBLIC HEARING The Chairman declared the hearing open and the Sec- retary presented for the record the affidavit of the publication of the notice of hearing. Mr. Eggers made the announcement that Case 341 for the Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant had been denied and the vote was follows: Commissioner Eggers - Nay Commissioner Wassman - Aye Commissioner Ching - Aye This application had been heard at a Special Meeting on May 20, 1971 and decision had been reserved. The Chairman stated that because there were only three members present at the Special Meeting it was necessary to have an unanimous vote. Mr. Eggers advised the applicants they had the right to reappeal the case and could go to the Supreme Court in White Plains. Mrs. DiFiore asked how the residents could go about having the street made a dead end street and the Chairman advised her to write to the Town Board. Mr. Eggers stated that in order to eliminate similar problems he intended to recommend to the Town Board that amendments be made to the Zoning Ordinance that restaurant "uses" be required to obtain a Special • Permit from the Town Board the same as gasoline sta- tions. The application was therefore denied and the follow- ing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, an application was submitted to the Zoning Board of Appeals to hear an appeal from the issuance of a building permit by the Building Inspector on March 3, 1971 for the construction of a build- ing to house a Kentucky Fried Chicken Rest- aurant at the corner of Boston Post Road and Winthrop Avenue in the Town and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 410 Parcel 1 known as 1370 Boston Post Road; and WHEREAS, this appeal was heard pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law of the State of New York and Section 553 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck; and WHEREAS, the appellants have submitted their appeal to this Board for the follow- ing reasons: 1. The appellants claim that 16 parking spaces as shown on the plan are inadequate. 2. That there is a safety haz- ard to the public already exist- ing at the Weaver Street entrance and school crossings to the Hom- mocks School, Central School and Saint John and Paul's School and the Kentucky Fried Chicken will add to an already perilous route to the school children. 3. The appellants object to the curb cut on Winthrop Avenue be- cause of the large amount of chil- dren living on the block who would be endangered by the cars exit- ing on Winthrop Avenue from the proposed restaurant. 4. Because the appellants main- tain that the plan does not in- dicate where the lighting is to be placed they feel there is a lighting inadequacy. Due to the close proximity of the adjacent residence cars will beam their lights directly into the windows when they park and a suitable fence should be erected to block out the light beams. 5. The appellants state that there is a screen inadequacy and because the adjacent resi- ( fig - M_ dence is close evergreen trees of sufficient height and density to adequately screen the resi- dential area from the business area are needed. 6. The appellants also stated that the emission of fumes was a factor and that the type of filtering equipment was not known. The appeal stated that adequate filters should be provided and guaranteed by the user to be properly maintained and replaced. 7. The application also stated that the proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant will cause traffic dangers to an existing heavily trafficked area. 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 denied the ap- plication on the following grounds: 1. According to the Zoning Regu- lations it is necessary to pro- vide one parking space for each 50 square feet of floor space devoted to patron use and the parking spaces shown on the pro- posed plan are more than adequate. 2. The Zoning Ordinance requires that a building in a Business District have a coverage of 25% and the building to be erected by the Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant has a building cover- age of only 12 to 13%. 3. The proposed plan, as pro- vided for in the Zoning Ordinance, has been examined and approved by the Town Engineer in refer- ence to traffic circulation, traffic access and general lay- out of parking facilities in regard to safety and adequacy. 4. The proposed plan had been referred to the New York State Department of Transportation who had reviewed the plan and made recommendations which were implemented. 5. According to the site plan for the proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant evergreens 6' to 7' in height are to be planted and suitable fencing is to be provided which is in compliance with the Zoning Ord- inance for a business which ad- joins a residential district. 6. The Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant maintains that the chicken is not deep fried and that a filter is used which eli- minates fumes and odor. 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 appli- cation of Mr. Joseph Pittera which had been postponed from the regular meeting of April 28, 1971 because Mr. Peter D. Mosher, Mr. Pittera's Attorney had re- quested the application be held over until a full Board was present. CASE 339 Application of Mr. Joseph Pittera for modification of Article IV Section 445.1 "Building on Lots of Less than the Required Size and Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Residence District Regulations for an R-7.5 Residential District of the Zoning Ordin- ance so as to allow the construction of a one family dwelling on a lot having a frontage of 20 feet in- stead of the required minimum lot frontage of 75 feet on the premises located at 24 Lafayette Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130 Parcel 239 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Peter D. Mosher, of 200A Myrtle Boulevard, an Attorney, who represented Mr. Pittera stated that the application was substantially the same as the previous application which had been denied at the Zoning Board meeting of May 27, 1970 except that © the size of the lot for the proposed dwelling has been increased to approximately 109x100 and the lot contains in excess of 10,000 square feet. Mr. Mosher pointed out that the Planning Board had approved Mr. Pittera's amended subdivision plan on October 14, 1970 and that the lot was originally owned by Jennie Davis in 1959. Mr. Mosher said that at the time of the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance in 1959 the lot in question was a separately owned lot. Mr. Mosher, also, stated that the Town has allowed variances on flag lots and that in new subdivisions lots with frontages of less than 25' are permitted. Mr. Eggers pointed out that the Zoning Board does not establish precedents. Mr. Mosher concluded by saying that the lot is substantially larger than many of the other building lots in that area and Mr. Pittera was present to support his application. Mr. Marion Brown of 20 Lafayette Road expressed his disapproval of the application. Mr. Brown stated that he felt Lafayette Road was a busy street at present and it is necessary for cars to back into his yard to turn around. Mr. Brown said that the proposed dwelling would not help anyone in the neigh- borhood and his taxes would not be decreased but the value of every house on the street will be de- creased. Mr. Robert Weiskopf of 18 Lafayette Road expressed his disapproval and Mr. Wassman read a letter from Mr. Scolaro of 16 Lafayette Road who said he felt that the assessed values of the neighborhood pro- perties would be adversely affected. Mr. Mosher pointed out that he did not think a house of $50,000.00 plus would destroy property values and that the lot meets all the requirements for a one family dwelling except for the frontage. Mr. Mosher, also, said that if Mr. Pittera is not permitted to build on the lot it would render the lot useless. After further discussion the Chairman asked for a short recess. When the Board returned a vote was taken on the application and the result was as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Aye Commissioner Wassman - Aye Commissioner Topping - Nay Commissioner Geary - Aye Commissioner Ching - Aye The application was therefore granted and the follow- ing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph Pittera has submitted an application for a building permit for � � the construction of a one family dwelling on a lot having a frontage of 20 feet to- gether 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 Arti- cle IV Section 445.1 "Building on Lots of Less than the Required Size" and Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Residence Dis- trict Regulations for an R-7.5 Residential District of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum lot frontage of 75 feet on the premises located at 24 Lafayette Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130 Parcel 239; and WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph Pittera has submitted to this Board an application for a vari- ance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the fol- lowing reasons: 1. At the time of the enactment of the Zoning Ordinance in 1959 the lot in question was separately owned. 2. The lot area is more than the required lot area for an R-7.5 Residential District. 3. If the applicant is not per- mitted to build on the lot it will render the lot useless. 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 grants the appli- cation 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 are peculiar to such land and/or buildings and do not apply generally to the land and/or buildings in the district and which circumstances and con- ditions have not resulted from any acts of the applicant sub- sequent to the date of the Zon- ing Regulations appealed from. (b) That the aforesaid circum- stances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. The lot area is substantially larger than required for build- ing lots in the area. 2. The lot was created before the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance which did not require a minimum frontage. 3. The proposed build- ing will have yard and size requirements in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. 4. That said circum- stances or conditions are such that the par- ticular application of the Ordinance with respect to Article IV Section 445.1 "Build- ing on Lots of Less than the Required Size" and Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Resi- dence District Regu- lations for an R-7.5 Residential District of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the ap- plicant of the reason- able use of land and/ or buildings and that for these reasons the granting of the var- iance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and/ or buildings and that the variance as granted by this Board is the minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 4. That the granting of this variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injur- ious to the neighbor- hood or otherwise det- rimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted to the applicant and that Article IV Section 445.1 "Building on Lots of Less than the Required Size" and Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Residence Dis- trict Regulations for an R-7.5 Residen- tial District of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum lot frontage of 75 feet on the premises located at 24 Lafayette Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130 Parcel 239 in strict confor- mance with plans filed with this appli- cation and amended, 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 con- struction 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 application. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 342 Application of Mr. Stephen Groth for modification 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 allow the installation of 36 lin. ft. of 6' high wooden fence along the northerly side property line . : �i on the premises located at 14 Alden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Parcel 640 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Groth, the applicant, stated that they have a small patio on the side of the house which is immediately adjacent to their neighbor's driveway. The applicant said that there was always a number of children and cars going in and out and they felt a 6' fence would shield the patio from the driveway. The Chairman said that the Board did not consider privacy a valid reason for a 6' fence and felt there were other means of overcoming the problem. After further discussion a vote was taken on the application and the result was as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Nay Commissioner Wassman - Nay Commissioner Topping - Nay Commissioner Geary - Aye Commissioner Ching - Nay The application was therefore denied and the follow- ing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Stephen Groth has submitted an application to the Building Inspector for a building permit to allow the install- ation of 36 lin. ft. of 6' high wooden fence along the northerly side property line on the premises located at 14 Alden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409 Parcel 640; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that installation of said fence would violate Article IV Section 421.4 Walls and Fences of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Ma- maroneck; and WHEREAS, Mr. Stephen Groth has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/ or unnecessary hardship for the following reason: To shield the patio from the neigh- bor's driveway and windows. 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, V NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board denied the ap- plication on the following grounds: 1. The Board finds that there is not sufficient hardship to justify the installation of the 6' fence. 2. That the facts and circum- stances are not such as would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of the land. 3. 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. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the last application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 343 Application of Mr. Gaetano Scutaro for modification of Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Residence Dis- trict Regulations for an R-7.5 Residential District of the Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the construc- tion of a one family dwelling having a front setback of 15 feet from Lundy Lane and 10 feet from Iselin Terrace instead of the minimum required setback of 30 feet from both street lines, a side yard of 5 feet instead of the required side yard of 10 feet and a building height of three stories and 37 feet instead of the required minimum height limit of 21 stories and 35 feet on the premises located at 2 Lundy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 502 Parcel 84 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unneces- sary hardship. Mr. Scutaro presented his application to the Board and stated that the lot in question was a very dif- ficult lot to work with because of the topography and irregular shape of the lot. The applicant said that even though the total coverage of the site is mostly rock and in order to avoid considerable blast- ing being an architect himself he conceived the pro- posed design. Mr. Scutaro pointed out that in order to obtain some reasonable yard area for family activities he pro- posed to locate the house 10 feet from the southern lot line and because the site is so steep he had decided on a single level area to obviate further climbing inside the house. Mr. Scutaro stated that the height requirement is because of the steep site and the height of the roof could be lowered only by the removal of much rock. The applicant pointed out that though his proposed plan showed a "hip" roof after talkingto some of the neighbors who were present at the meeting he had consented to change to a flat roof which would bring it closer to the 35' height limitation. Mr. Eggers said that he thought most of the rock looked fairly loose and not unexcavatable and the only portion he thought was solid rock was the part that Mr. Scutaro had allowed for the entry. Mr. Scutaro said that he had a structural engineer lock at the rock and he had confirmed his opinion that the house could be raised on rock. Mr. Wassman asked about the water drainage. Mr. Scutaro said that the surface water would not be disturbed and would be picked up by the storm sewage system and the roof drain would run to the storm drain. Mr. Wassman also asked Mr. Scutaro as to whether he had taken title to the property as yet and Mr. Scutaro said he had bought the property in October 1969 from the developer of the subdivision. The Board pointed out that the road was a dead end and on the New Rochelle boundary line. Mr. Scutaro said he had spoken to people in New Rochelle and they said they had no intention of ever going through with the road at that point. Mr. Endick of 84 Iselin Terrace questioned the Board as to the remarks made regarding the previous appli- cation in respect to precedents and what could and could not be done with regard to this particular piece of property. Mr. Eggers pointed out to Mr. Endick that each application is heard on its own merits and that no precedent is established. Mr. James Theoharides of 82 Iselin Terrace expressed his objection to the application and said that there were some trees that Mr. Scutaro would not be able to save. Mr. Theoharides stated he felt the proposed house would stand out like a "sore thumb". Mr. Wassman read a letter from Mr. Richard Wolf of 5 Lundy Lane in which he expressed his disapproval C of the application. Mr. Robert Levine of 7 Lundy Lane said he had two major objections which were the setback from the J corner and the fact that the house would be over the 35 feet allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Joel Popper of 11 Lundy Lane and Mr. Richard Stenger of 3 Lundy Lane both said they did not ap- prove of the application and Mr. Scutaro said that he wanted to please his neighbors and would abide by whatever decision the Board made. After further discussion a vote was taken on the application and the result was as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Nay Commissioner Wassman - Nay Commissioner Topping - Nay Commissioner Geary - Nay Commissioner Ching - Nay The application was therefore denied and the follow- ing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Gaetano Scutaro has submitted an application for a building permit for the construction of a one family dwelling on a lot having a front setback of 15 feet from Lundy Lane and 10 feet from Iselin Terrace, a side yard of 5 feet and a height limit of 3 stories and 37 feet 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 Residence Dis- trict Regulations for an R-7.5 Residential District of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum required setback of 30 feet from both street lines, a required side yard of 10 feet and a required mini- mum height limit of 21 stories and 35 feet on the premises located at 2 Lundy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 502 Par- cel 84; and WHEREAS, Mr. Gaetano Scutaro 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. Because of the topography and irregular shape of the lot it is a very difficult lot to work with. K 2. In order to obtain a reason- able yard area for family acti- vites it is necessary to locate the house 10 ft. from the lot line. 3. Because the site is so steep the only way the roof could be lowered would be by the removal of much rock. WHEREAS, the 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 Board felt the topograph- ical conditions of the lot were such that a dwelling could be constructed in compliance with the area yard requirements. 2. That the facts and circumstances claimed by the applicant to en- title him to the variance are not such as would deprive him of the reasonable use of the land. 3. That the granting of the var- iance 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. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meeting it was adjourned at 10:05 P.M. L2 Rita A. Johnso Secretary