Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975_06_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD JUNE 25, 1975, 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. Richard F. Eggers, Chairman Mr. Andrew W. Boraczek Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty Mr. Lawrence G. Bodkin, Jr. Absent: Mr. E. Robert Wassman Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of May 28, 1975 were presented and on motion duly made and seconded, approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING The Chairman declared the hearing open and the Secretary presented for the record the affidavit of publication of the notice of hearing. OLD BUSINESS - CASE 424 Members of the Board voted on the application of Mr. Frank Guadagnolo which had been heard at a Special Meeting held on June 18, 1975 and the vote was as follows : Commissioner Eggers - Nay Commissioner Boraczek - Nay Commissioner Hardesty - Nay Commissioner Bodkin - Nay The application was therefore denied and the following Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Frank Guadagnolo has submitted an application to the Building Inspector for the construction of a seven story, non-conforming apartment building and off-street parking faci- lity on a parcel of land zoned OB-2 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 IV Section 410 "Schedule of Permitted Uses in an Office Building District" � �"6. 3 I and Article IV Section 400.1 "Conformance Required for All Land and Buildings" of the Zoning Ordinance which does not permit an apartment building on a parcel of land zoned OB-2 on the premises lo- cated at 2 Garfield Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 148; and WHEREAS , Mr. Frank Guadagnolo has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons : There are practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the ordinance in that the primary use contemplated in an OB-2 District, the construction of an office build- ing is prohibited by restrictive coven- ants and the alternative uses permitted are not feasible, economically or otherwise. 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 applica- tion for the following reasons : The application was a rehearing of an application originally heard on February 10, 1973 which was remanded to this Board for further proceedings by order of Judge O' Gorman dated Decem- ber 15, 1973 so that further testi- mony might be taken. Judge O' Gorman reaffirmed the need for this rehear- ing by an Interlocutory Order dated December 28, 1973. This in turn was affirmed by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department on March 5, 1975. The Board originally scheduled this hearing for May 21 , 1975 at 8:15 P.M. By an injunction granted May 21 , 1975 by Judge Caruso of the Supreme Court, the hearing was postponed so that the adjoining neighbors could have sufficient time within which to retain the services of those experts that they might wish to present so as to contest the granting of the petition. Before the discretion of the Zoning Board to vary or modify the applica- tion of a Zoning Ordinance may be exercised favorably in behalf of a petitioner on the ground of practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship, the petitioner has the burden of proof to establish that the land in ques- tion cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for the purposes allowed in that zone, that his plight is due to unique circumstances and not to general conditions in the neighbor- hood which may reflect the unreason- ableness of the zoning ordinance itself, and the use to be authorized by the variance would not alter the essential character of the locality. The petitioner has not proven that his land cannot yield a reasonable return if used for the purposes for which it is zoned. The testimony is that he bought the land, in a series of transactions in 1954. The uses to which this property could be put then, are also permitted now. The testimony is clear that the petitioner's sole purpose in assembling these con- tiguous parcels comprising some 21/2 acres of vacant land, was so as to build a shopping center -- a use not allowed under the ordinance. Any improvement to the land was his volun- tary act and cannot be taken into consideration in establishing economic return. There was no testimony that the peti- tioner ever tried to put the property to the use it is zoned, namely one- family residences. There was no proof that the land will not yield a reason- able return from any residential use. While there is some conflict in the testimony of the engineering experts produced by the petitioner and the adjoining neighbors as to the amount of piling needed to support any struc- ture erected on the site, it is abun- dantly clear that a full utilization of the 21/2 acres would require some piling, but we do not believe this to be unique. The petitioner bought with the full knowledge of the physi- cal as well as zoning limitations burdening this property and regard- less of the type of structure erected there would have to be some sort of foundation support in some areas of the land. The dewatering process, alluded to by the engineering expert for the petitioner, would have a very detrimental effect on the existing inground utilities by increasing the overburden and thereby changing the soil profile with ensuing settlement of the land and consequential damage to the existing utilities , roadways and possible neighboring structures. The petitioner's land immediately abuts a neighborhood of excellent one-family houses. There was uncon- traverted testimony that several of these houses have recently sold for upwards of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000. ) The individual members of this Board are very familiar with this area and surrounding neighbor- hood. We have inspected the site and the area immediately surrounding it. Lafayette Road and Madison Ave- nue have single family, well-maintained residences on them with well-manicured yards. Many of them have back yards which run up to and adjoin the peti- tioner' s parcel . Between Garfield Street (the street upon which the petitioner' s land fronts) and the apartment buildings to the south are Town park lands. They are well-main- tained, grassed and sustain large trees. This greensward acts as a buffer between the apartments and the lands which are the subject mat- ter of this application. The land to the east is also a Town-owned park which has served as a buffer between an apartment building to the south and the excellent one-family resi- dences immediately to the north. It' s our belief, based upon the tes- timony of the witnesses , that to grant the variance sought would be to measur- ably depreciate the values of all these surrounding one-family residences as well as subject them to increased traffic noises. As zoned, there can be built upon the subject property 14 one-family houses each on a lot of 7,500 sq. ft. We believe this development of the land to be harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood and in conformity with comprehensive zoning. Additionally, it will pro- tect and conserve the value of the neighborhood surrounding it, RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk in accordance with Section 267 of the Town Law. OLD BUSINESS - CASE 425 Mr. Eggers asked the Board to vote on Case 425, the appli- cation of Mrs. Joy Baumblatt which had been heard at the meeting held on May 28, 1975. The vote was not taken at the time of the hearing because the Chairman felt that since there was 50 years involved in usage it would be nec- essary to have the opinion of the Town Attorney. Mr. Wass- man had given the Secretary his vote at the Special Meet- ing held on June 18, 1975. The result of the vote was as follows : Commissioner Eggers - Nay Commissioner Wassman - Nay Commissioner Boraczek - Nay Commissioner Hardesty - Nay Commissioner Bodkin - Nay The application was therefore denied and the following Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Joy Baumblatt has submitted an application to the Building Inspector to issue a certificate of occupancy for the existing dwelling to be used and occupied as a three family dwelling; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such certificate on the grounds that Article IV Section 410 "Schedule of Permitted Uses in a Residence District" R-10 One Family District of the Zoning Ordinance which does not permit multiple family use on the premises located at 66 Holly Place and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 223 Parcel 131 ; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Joy Baumblatt 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 house as far back as 1928 was built with 3 separate apartments. 2. The applicant rented the second floor apartment in 1964. 3. When the house was purchased in 1969 it was a three family dwelling. 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 denied the applica- tion on the following grounds: 1 . That the dwelling was built in 1923 at which time the property was zoned for single family residences. 2. The building department records indicate that a permit for a one family residence only was issued for the construction of the dwell- ing. 3. That no other permits have been issued for the alteration of the dwelling to a three family use. 4. That the applicant had purchased the dwelling in 1969 at which time the property was subject to the require- ments of a Residential R-10 District. 5. That the property is being used by the applicant as a three family dwelling. 6. That the use of this property as a three family dwelling has gen- erated an excessive amount of traf- fic in the area. 7. That there are no off-street parking facilities provided on the property. 8. That the applicant has applied for a Certificate of Occupancy for three family use. 9. Said use is in violation of Ar- ticle IV Section 410 Schedule of Permitted Uses in an R-10 Residen- tial District which restricts the use of the property to one family dwellings. 10. Prosecution of said violation by the Building Inspector has been stayed pending official determina- tion of the present application. ; ,, 11 . That there were no special cir- cumstances or conditions applying 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. 12. That the facts and circumstances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive him of the reason- able use of the land. 13. That the granting of the vari- ance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and would be injur- ious 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 first appli- cation. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 427 Application of Mrs. Gloria Levine for modification of Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Residence District Regulations for an R-15 Residential District so as to allow the construction of an addition at the front of the dwelling having a front setback of 32 ft. instead of the minimum required front setback of 40 ft. on the premises located at 10 Dundee Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211 Parcel 445 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/ or unnecessary hardship. Mrs. Levine in her application stated that they wanted to cover the existing platform so that when they enter the front door it is not necessary to stand or bring in the rain or snow while opening the door. The house is in need of repairs outside and the applicant wanted to incorporate the repairs along with the addition. The Board pointedout that the addition would not be extending any further than the existing stoop and that the house was built under the old zoning and complied at that time. After a brief discussion a vote was taken on the appli- cation and the result was as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Aye Commissioner Boraczek - Aye Commissioner Hardesty - Aye Commissioner Bodkin - Aye I The application was therefore approved and the following Resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mrs. Gloria Levine has submitted an application to the Building Inspector to al- low the construction of an addition at the front of the dwelling having a front setback of 32 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 wit the Zon- ing Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article IV Section 410 Schedule of Residence District Regulations for an R-15 Residential District which requires a minimum front setback of 40 ft. on the pre- mises located at 10 Dundee Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 211 Parcel 445; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Gloria Levine 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 proposed addition will provide a cover so that when the front door is open it will not be necessary to stand in the rain or snow while open- ing the door and will keep the rain and snow out. 2. The front pillars on each side of the door are rotting and need re- placement. 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 the applica- tion 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 : _ ll 1 . The proposed addition will not encroach on the present front yard any further than the existing platform. 2. The proposed addition will create an enclosed portico which will protect the applicant from the rain and snow. (c) That the granting of this vari- ance will be in harmony with the gen- eral purposes and intent of this Ordi- nance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detri- mental 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 District Regulations for an R-15 Residential District of the Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the construction of an addition at the front of the dwelling having a front setback of 32 ft. on the premises located at 10 Dundee Road and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211 Parcel 445 in strict conformance with plans filed with the application provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mama- roneck. 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. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meet- ing it was adjourned at 8:30 P.M. Rita A. Johns n, Secretary fC9( I