Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976_10_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD OCTOBER 27, 1976, 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 8:25 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. E. Robert Wassman , Chairman Mr. Andrew W. Boraczek Mr. Lawrence G. Bodkin, Jr. Mr. Peter G. Moore Absent: Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of the meetings of August 25, 1976 and September 22, 1976 were presented. The minutes of the meeting of September 22, on motion duly made and seconded, were ap- proved as submitted. The Board decided to reserve deci- sion on the minutes of the meeting of August 25 until they reviewed them again. 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 - GUADAGNOLO APPLICATION The Board announced the following Resolution pertaining to the "Use Variance" was duly adopted: WHEREAS, this Board has been directed by the Appellate Division, Second Department of the Supreme Court of the State of New York to grant Frank Guadagnolo a use variance for the pro- perty he owns on 2 Garfield Street in the Town of Mamaroneck, subject to conditions and re- quirements which the Board may deem appropriate; BE IT RESOLVED, that the applicant's property located at 2 Garfield Street and known as Block 133 Parcel 148 on the Tax Map of the Town of Mamaroneck is hereby rezoned to multi-family use so as to comply with the RTA Zone in the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all other provi- sions of the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck and all other � 1 � 11 regulations pertaining to buildings permitted in the RTA Zone are to be applicable to said property situated at 2 Garfield Street in the Town of Mamaroneck, FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk in accordance with Section 267 of the Town Law. The Board announced the "Area Variance" was denied and the following Resolution was duly adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. Frank Guadagnolo has applied to this Board for use and area variances so that a seven story apartment building and parking garage could be erected on the premises known as 2 Garfield Street, Block 133 Parcel 148, Town of Mamaroneck, and WHEREAS, the second part of his application (dealing with the area variances alone) was heard on August 25, 1976 at a public hearing, at which time all parties interested were heard and their evidence and proofs received; and the public hearing having been closed and the members of this Board having made personal in- spection of the premises and being familiar therewith, and WHEREAS, after duly considering all the proofs and evidence before it, this Board finds as fol- lows : 1 . The applicant owns this vacant land comprising approximately two and one half (2/) acres situated in an OB-2 Zone. The property is a vacant lot bounded on the west by Madison Avenue, an improved public street; on the north by Adams Street, an unimproved paper street; on the east by North Chatsworth Avenue, an improved public street; and on the south by Garfield Street, a private street having a right-of-way width of thirty-five (35) feet. The lot is rectangular in shape having a front- age of five hundred fifty (550) feet on Garfield Street and a depth along Madison Avenue on the west and North Chatsworth Avenue on the east of two hundred five (205) feet. The rear lot line is five hundred fifty (550) feet and runs parallel along Adams Street. The topography of the lot slopes from its easterly boundary line at North Chatsworth Avenue to I its westerly boundary at Madison Ave- nue. The lot has been filled over and the soil condition is wet with peat and humus contained in its sub- strata soil . 2. The application has been divided into separate and distinct parts. The first had to do with a use vari- ance. Apartment houses are not per- mitted in an OB-2 Zone. It was agreed that should the use segment of the application be denied there would be no necessity for a hearing having to do with the area porti on. Origi- nally a use variance was denied by this Board. Our decision was sustained by the Supreme Court. On further appeal , the Appellate Division , Second Department, reversed Special Term and this Board and granted a use vari- ance subject to any conditions and requirements which this Board might deem appropriate. So as to comply with the Appellate Division' s direc- tive, the property has been rezoned RTP,. This will permit the most in- tensive use of the property under the Zoning Ordinance of the Town. 3. The proposed structures would front on Garfield Street, a private street. The site plan submitted on behalf of the applicant, does not show nor provide for improvements in or to the street. Neither do the plans make provision for utility con- nections which would have to be made for the proposed seven (7) story - 152 unit structure. Under Section 280A of the Town Law, structures such as are proposed are not permitted on substandard streets. The Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck incorporates the provisions of Sec- tion 280A of the Town Law. Without a site plan which would correctly show Garfield Street as an acceptable street, setbacks and side yards can- not be definitively shown, much less determined. 4. At the hearing, the only person to speak in favor of this application was the applicant's attorney. No witnesses were called. For this reason questions of a technical nature sought to be posed by members of the Board were not answered. It should be noted that the property suffers from a severe water problem. The topography of the lot in question demands extreme care in its development so as to ad- equately protect the adjoining pro- perties from the hazards of surface and underground runoff. In the use segment of the application, testi- mony was adduced that piling would have to be resorted to on much of the land so that the proposed struc- tures might be built. Notwithstand- ing these severe conditions, the plans presently call for the construction of a basement garage which will occupy 59% of the land. Questions concern- ing the dewatering of the premises and what effect dewatering would have on adjacent structures were not answered. 5. Under the RTA Zone, the maximum building coverage permitted is 20%. The site plan shows 20% coverage at grade and 59. 3% below grade. As pre- viously noted, the actual setbacks cannot be determined because of a failure to show improvement of the private street, Garfield Street. 6. The site plan does not give ade- quate information as to landscaping and retaining walls , curbing and sur- facing of parking areas. Existing and proposed grades and elevations are not shown. Floor elevations , driveways , exits , entrances , ramps and walks and other proposed improve- ments are not provided for. The plan indicates that there will be 152 apart- ment units in the structure. In an RTA Zone, the minimum area per dwell- ing unit is 1500 square feet. The proposed structure calls for 741 square feet of area per unit. Because of the unsufficiency of the plans and the failure to produce witnesses the applica- tion is denied with leave to the applicant to present sufficient and proper plans and evidence in support of the various area vari- ances requested at such time as he is prepared to go forward. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk in accordance with Section 267 of the Town Law. Mr. Wassman asked the Secretary to read the first appli- cation. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 450 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Jerome Feltenstein for modi- fication of Article IV Section 20 Subsection C (3) "Ac- cessory Uses" Swimming Pools as permitted by the Build- ing Code to allow the construction of an in the ground swimming pool having a rear yard of 5 ft. , a side yard of 2 ft. and a distance separation of 4 ft. from the dwell- ing instead of the minimum required rear yard of 20 ft. , side yard of 15 ft. and distance separation of 15 ft. from the dwelling on the premises located at 12 Lundy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 502 Parcel 41 on the grounds of prac- tical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mr. Feltenstein presented his application to the Board and said his hardship was because there was no room on the property for a pool to be located without a variance. The applicant said that there were trees on the lot he did not want to destroy and there was a drop of 2 ft. off from the edge of the house down to the back of his property line. Mr. Wassman and Mr. Bodkin both said that they did not see Mr. Feltenstein' s hardship and the necessity of hav- ing a swimming pool that occupies most of the back yard. Mr. Paonessa pointed out that the lot is shallow in the rear and is "pie-shaped". Mr. Boraczek asked if the pool could be moved back but it was pointed out that it would only meet one of the three violations. Mr. William Weschler of 16 Lundy Lane said he was con- cerned about the safety of the children and questioned the wisdom of the applicant's plan. Dr. Chung Wang of 10 Lundy Lane said he came directly from the hospital to attend the meeting and was concerned about his children. Dr. Wang said the pool would be only two feet away from his property and if the pool was al- lowed he would have to move. Mr. Wassman pointed out that when pools are allowed it is necessary to provide protection. After further discussion a vote was taken on the appli- cation and the result was as follows : Commissioner Wassman - Nay Commissioner Boraczek - Nay Commissioner Bodkin - Nay Commissioner Moore - Nay The application was therefore denied and the following Resolution duly adopted: `_ � „A 1 WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Jerome Feltenstein have submitted an application to the Building Inspec- tor to allow the construction of an in the ground swimming pool having a rear yard of 5 ft. , a side yard of 2 ft. and a distance separation of 4 ft. from the 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 Zon- ing Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article IV Section 20 Subsection (3) "Accessory Uses" Swimming Pools which requires a minimum rear yard of 30 ft. , a side yard of 15 ft. and distance separation of 15 ft. from the dwelling on the premises located at 12 Lundy Lane and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 502 Parcel 41 ; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Jerome Feltenstein have submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reason: 1 . Because of the topography of the lot there is no room for a pool to be located on the property without a variance. 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 proposed location of the swimming pool in the shallow rear yard will not provide the necessary separation distance between adjoin- ing properties and the applicant's dwelling to insure its use without effecting these properties. 2. 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. I 3. That the facts and circumstances claimed by the applicants to entitle them to the variance are not such as would deprive the applicants of the reasonable use of the land. 4. That the granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the gen- eral purposes and intent of this Ordi- nance 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. OLD BUSINESS The Chairman had invited Mr. Otto Scheuble of 3 Rock Ridge Road to attend the meeting. Mr. Scheuble stated that Cook's restaurant is in violation of the Zoning Ordinance in respect to Section 89.41 (3) because an addition had been added in 1959 which violates the pre- sent Zoning Law. It was pointed out that Mr. Scheuble was referring to Section 41 Subsection B (3) and that the permit for the addition in 1959 had been granted before the date the new Zoning Ordinance had gone into effect. It was, also, pointed out that a letter had been sent to Mr. Scheuble inviting him to come into the Office of the Building Department to examine the records of Cook' s. The Secretary advised the members that the date for the next regular meeting would be Thanksgiving Eve. It was decided that if there was an agenda the meeting would be held on December 1st. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meet- ing it was adjourned at 9:15 P.M. Rita A. Johnson, Secretary