Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1970_05_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD MAY 27, 1970, IN THE COURT ROOM 4L14 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 8:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Richard F. Eggers, Chairman Mr. E. Robert Wassman Mr. Henry Mullick Mr. Price H. Topping Absent: Mr. Donald D. Geary, Jr. Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of April 22, 1970 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. The Chairman requested the Secretary to read the first application that had been postponed from the previous meeting. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 324 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 Ordinance so as to allow the construction of a one family dwell- ing on a lot having a frontage of 20 feet instead 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, an Attorney of 200A Myrtle Boule- vard represented Mr. Pittera. Mr. J. Henry Neale, an Attorney of the Harwood Build- ing in Scarsdale represented Mr. and Mrs. Philippe Magdelain of 19 Lafayette Road who opposed the ap- plication. Mr. Neale said that he and his client had conferred with Mr. Mosher and Mr. Pittera before the meeting and the applicant had consented to add more area to the lot in question which would elimi- nate his client's objection but the Board said that it would not change the frontage of the lot for which the variance was required. The Board would not amend the application as they felt there was no guarantee that Mr. Pittera would not park on the 20 foot strip. Mr. Mosher stated that the applicant was asking for a variance to build on a lot having less than the required frontage on a public street and the proposed building lot is what is known as a "flag" lot which conforms in all other respects with the Zoning Ordi- nance of the Town of Mamaroneck. The Attorney pointed out that the lot is substantially above average in area and that this lot was created by former owners. Mr. Mosher pointed out that Mr. Pittera had acquired the"flag" lot in 1970 from B. M. Heede, Inc. which at that time had a frontage of 20 feet on Lafayette Road. The Board asked if there was any possibility of Mr. Pittera obtaining another five feet and Mr. Mosher said only if Mr. Magdelain or Mr. Rothman, the adjoining property owners would sell the extra five feet to Mr. Pittera. Mr. Mosher said that before B. M. Heede, Inc. sold the property in question to Mr. Pittera they had given the right of first refusal to purchase the property to Mr. Magdelain. Mr. Neale stated that the property in question and Mr. Magdelain's lot was originally part of one single parcel owned by Heede. The parcel in question was conveyed in 1959 to B. M. Heede, Inc. Mr. Magdelain acquired his property from Mr. Heede in 1963 and his driveway extends over a corner of the particular lot in question. When Mr. Magdelain purchased the property he acquired an easement for the driveway. Mr. Neale said that because of the short turn on Lafayette Road the proposed dwelling would create an additional fire and traffic hazard and his client thought Mr. Pittera should build the proposed dwell- ing on the other lot which had the required front- age. The Board pointed out that the lot was on a "paper street" and Mr. Pittera could not use that portion of Lester Place for access. Mr. Robert Weiskopf of 18 Lafayette Road, also, ob- jected to the application and said that he felt Mr. Pittera was well aware of the problem when he pur- chased the lot in question. Mr. Weiskopf said that if Mr. Pittera's application was granted several pine trees would have to be removed. Mr. Marion Brown of 20 Lafayette Road and Mr. Hayden ,440 T ► 7 W. Smith of 8 Lafayette Road expressed their dis- approval of the application. 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 fol- lows: Commissioner Eggers - Nay Commissioner Wassman - Nay Commissioner Mullick - Nay Commissioner Topping - Nay The application was therefore denied and the follow- ing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Joseph Pittera has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for the construc- tion of a one family dwelling on a lot having a frontage of 20 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 Arti- cle IV Section 445.1 "Building on Lots of Less than the Required Size" and Arti- cle IV Section 410 Schedule of Residence District 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; 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 follow- ing reasons: 1. When the lot was originally subdivided the property in ques- tion was created as a "flag" lot. 2. The lot has an area of more than the required lot area for an R-7.5 Residential District. 3. Mr. Pittera will have a vac- ant lot that cannot be sold be- cause it is not a buildable lot. 03g' 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 appli- cation on the following grounds: 1. That the applicant purchased said property in January of 1970 at which time it was subject to the zoning requirements of an R-7.5 Residential District. 2. The applicant at that time owned adjoining and contiguous land. 3. That the applicant subsequently combined and subdivided into two parcels creating two nonconforming lots. 4. That the applicant failed to present any detailed architec- tural or landscaping plan with respect to the development of the property in question. 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 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. The Chairman asked the Secretary to read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 325 Application of Mr. Frank Micelli for modification of Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Permitted Uses in a "B" Business District of the Zoning Ordinance so as to permit the premises to be used for purposes incidental to general contracting business, i.e. , parking and storage of trucks and miscellaneous con- tractor's equipment located on the easterly side of Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131 Parcel 40 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or un- necessary hardship. Mr. Francis A. Auletta, an Attorney of 243 Mamaro- neck Avenue represented Mr. Micelli and pointed out that when Mr. Micelli purchased the property in 1968 there was a frame house and garage on the premises. When Mr. Micelli entered into contract with the seller he received notice that there had been a fire and he was ordered to remove the house. Mr. Auletta said that the applicant has graded and cleaned the lot thereby improving the area and that the proposed parking and storage area is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Auletta stated that Mr. Micelli is a general contractor and has heavy equipment including tools which have to be kept in out of the weather. The applicant intends to keep a movable field trailer on the lot to store tools and a small movable trailer for office purposes but the trailers will only be kept on the lot for storage temporarily between jobs. Mr. Micelli in- tends to put up a fence around the property and the surface of the lot will be gravel with a paved road- way entrance. Mr. Auletta presented the Board with a petition signed by several of the neighbors approving the applica- tion and Mr. and Mrs. Joseph DeAlleaume appeared and expressed their approval. After a brief discussion a vote was taken on the application and the result was as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Aye Commissioner Wassman - Nay Commissioner Mullick - Aye Commissioner Topping - Aye The application was therefore granted and the fol- lowing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Frank Micelli has submitted an application for permission to store and maintain contractor's equipment on a lot 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 !PALI Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Permitted Uses in a "B" Business District which does not permit the parking and storage of trucks and miscellaneous contractor's equipment located on the premises on the easterly side of Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131 Parcel 40; and WHEREAS, Mr. Frank Micelli 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. Proposed parking and stor- age area is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood where similar contractor's establish- ments and equipment are located. 2. The two portable trailers will only be kept on the lot temporarily between jobs. 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 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 are peculiar to such land and/or buildings and do not apply generally to the land and/or build- ings 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 such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Article IV Section 410 would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use ftY/ of such land and/or building and that for these reasons the grant- ing of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by this Board is the minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. (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 410 Schedule of Permitted Uses in a "B" Business District of the Zoning Ordinance so as to permit the premises to be used for purposes incidental to gen- eral contracting business; i.e. , parking and storage of trucks and miscellaneous contractor's equipment on the premises located on the easterly side of Valley Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131 Parcel 40 in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application and amended, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordi- nance 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 third application. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 326 Application of Mr. Otto Scheuble for modification ��fet of Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Residence Dis- trict Regulations for an R-7.5 Residential District and Article IV Section 445 "Building on Lots Less than the Required Size" of the Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the construction of a one family dwell- ing on a lot having a front setback of 20 feet rather than the required minimum setback of 30 feet and an average depth of 80 feet instead of the required minimum depth of 100 feet on the premises located at 25 Rock Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412 Par- cel 596 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/ or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Scheuble appeared before the Board with his ap- plication. The applicant stated that because of other commitments he was unable to complete the dwell- ing for which he had been granted a variance to build in December 1965. Mr. Scheuble stated that due to the irregular shape and topographical condition of the lot in question, which is very shallow and rocky, it is necessary to locate the proposed dwelling closer to Rock Ridge Road than is allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant had obtained a building permit but according to the Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of Appeals at its December 1965 meeting the building permit is void if the building is not com- pleted within two years. Mr. Scheuble had appeared before the Board several times previous since he obtained the property in 1955. After a short discussion a vote was taken on the application and the result was as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Aye Commissioner Wassman - Aye Commissioner Mullick - Aye Commissioner Topping - Aye The application was therefore grantdd and the fol- lowing Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Otto Scheuble has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector to allow the con- struction of a one family dwelling on a lot having a front setback of 20 feet and having an average depth of 80 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- / r �' 3 roneck with particular reference to Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Residence Dis- trict Regulations and Article IV Section 445 "Building on Lots less than the Required Size" of the Zoning Ordinance which requires a minimum front setback of 30 feet and a minimum average depth of 100 feet on the premises located at 25 Rock Ridge Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412 Par- cel 596; and WHEREAS, Mr. Otto Scheuble 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. Due to the irregular shape and topographical condition of the lot which is very shallow and rocky, it is necessary to locate the proposed dwelling closer to Rock Ridge Road than required by the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Due to the fact that the lot abuts a business zone a 20 foot setback will enable the applicant to maintain a minimum rear yard of 25 feet. 3. The applicant has not been able to complete the work for which he had obtained a variance in 1965 because of other commit- ments. 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 ap- plication on the following grounds: (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land and/or build- ing 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 said circumstances and/or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Article IV Section 410 would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land and/ or building and that for these reasons the granting of the var- iance is necessary for the reason- able use of the land and/or build- ing and that the variance as granted by this Board is the minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. (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 410 Schedule of Residence Dis- trict Regulations for an R-7.5 Residential District and Article IV Section 445 "Build- ing on Lots Less than the Required Size" of the Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the construction of a one family dwelling on the premises located at 25 Rock Ridge Road in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application and amended, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordi- nance 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. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meeting it was adjourned at 10:00 P.M. Rita A. Joh on, Secretary