Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973_02_08 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD FEBRUARY 8, 1973, IN THE AUDI- TORIUM OF THE WEAVER STREET FIREHOUSE, WEAVER STREET AND EDGE- WOOD 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. Donald D. Geary, Jr. Mr. Andrew W. Boraczek Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector Mr. James J. Johnston, Town Attorney Mr. William Aitchison, Superintendent of Highways Mr. Robert Barasch, Chief of Police APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meetings of September 27, 1972 and October 25, 1972 were presented and on motion duly made and seconded, approved 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. Mr. Eggers asked the Secretary to read the applica- tion. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 372 Application of Mr. Frank Guadagnolo for modification of Article IV Section 410 "Schedule of Permitted Uses in an Office Building District" and Article IV Section 400.1 "Conformance Required for All Land and Buildings" of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck so as to allow the use of the land for the construction of a seven story, non-conform- ing apartment building and off-street parking faci- lity on a parcel of land Zoned OB-2 on the premises located at 2 Garfield Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 148 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. The Chairman explained to the audience that on the advise of the Town Attorney this Special Meeting c1U `y, was being held by direction of the Supreme Court of the County of Westchester. Mr. Eggers said that the Zoning Board because of the Supreme Court deci- sion was in a position to make judgment and anyone questioning the Board's jurisdiction would not be heard. The Chairman stated that the application would be heard in two phases. The first phase would be the "Use Variance" and the second would involve the type of apartment. Mr. Frank H. Connelly, Jr. , an Attorney of 249 Hugue- not Street, New Rochelle, New York, represented the applicant, Mr. Frank Guadagnolo and presented the Board with Exhibit "A" which was the appellant's submission to the Board of Appeals and Exhibit "B" and "C" which were aerial photographs showing the site in question and surrounding properties. Exhi- bit "D" was an area map showing the property in the immediate vicinity of the proposed apartment build- ing. Mr. Connelly said that his submission to the Board of Appeals consisted of five affidavits and four exhibits and proceeded to present his applica- tion to the Board. Mr. Connelly stated that the application was for a "Use Variance" and because of the decision handed down by Judge Dillon on Feb- ruary 16, 1968 which stated that according to Sec- tion 267 of the Town Law the Board of Appeals was empowered to grant a variance for the "use of land" where there has been a showing of unnecessary hard- ship. Mr. Connelly further stated that Mr. Guadagnolo pur- chased the property in five different transactions beginning in December 1954 and ending in July 1955 for a total price of $52,000.00. At the time the applicant purchased the property it was allegedly mainly swamp and bog and at its easterly end the grade was 18 feet below the grade of Chatsworth Ave- nue with most of the remainder of the grade below the grade of the surrounding streets. Mr. Guadag- nolo filled in the property at a purported cost of $65,000.00 and then made an application to the Town Board to permit a shopping center which was denied on September 7, 1955. In 1959 when the new zoning was enacted the applicant's property was zoned for office building, but because there was a restrictive covenant on the property Mr. Guadagnolo was unsuc- cessful in selling the lot as title insurance could not be obtained. In 1967 when an application was submitted to the Zoning Board for a variance to permit the construc- tion of an apartment house the Board refused to hear the application because it contended that it was without jurisdiction. Mr. Justice Dillon overruled r4V`� the Board and ordered the Board to hear the case. Subsequently the Town informed Mr. Guadagnolo that they were interested in purchasing the property for a Town Hall. After about a year the applicant agreed to accept $282,000.00 for the site but the Town was not able to make good on its offer. In the meantime Mr. Guadagnolo's taxes had increased and in 1969 Credit Services, Inc. entered into a contingent contract for the purchase of the property for $410,100.00 to be used for an office building for Longines Symphonette Recording Society. The contract between Credit Services and the applicant was contingent upon a successful suit for judgment annulling the restrictive covenants. The matter was tried in Supreme Court Westchester County before Judge Belsheim who decreed that the covenants were still valid and that therefore no office building could be built. Mr. Connelly said that Mr. Guadagnolo has invested over $250,000.00 in the property and that the only reasonable return that can be obtained would be to erect an apartment house as the cost to build one family homes on this site would be so excessive that it would make them unmarketable. Mr. Connelly fur- ther stated that by building one family houses Mr. Guadagnolo would only realize one third of his in- vestment and an apartment house would not alter the character of the neighborhood as there are already nine apartment buildings in the area. Mr. Connelly then asked Mr. Edmund J. McCarthy, who is the Architect, to speak. Mr. McCarthy said that the proposed apartment was the smallest that could be built on the site because of the serious founda- tion problems and the lot coverage on the proposed building is less than 20% wheras the other apartment buildings in the area occupy between 30 and 90% of their lots. Mr. McCarthy stated that of the seven story buildings that are presently in the area they are all at least 80 feet high whereas the proposed building is only 70 feet high and no higher than the present 6 story apartment buildings. Mr. McCar- thy, also, stated that the proposed building would cost between three and four million dollars and would be a luxury type apartment renting for more than $100. per room. Mr. McCarthy went on to relate that boring reports indicate a swampy bog type of subsoil on a portion of the parcel which would mandate pile foundations and one family houses could not be built for less than $100,000. to $150,000. Mr. Fred W. Lyon, a Professional Engineer, was not able to appear, but states, by way of affidavit, that piles of average lengths of 30 feet would be required except in the center on the southerly side t 4- o (4 where it will be necessary to use longer piles. Mr. Lyon maintains that because of the subsurface conditions the site is unsuitable except for a mul- ti-story construction as proposed in the application and if one family dwellings were constructed they would have to be built without cellars. Mr. John W. Lane, whth is a Real Estate Appraiser, spoke next and stated that he has been engaged in appraising property in the real estate business since 1922. Mr. Lane said he is completely familiar with the property in question and in his opinion the ap- propriate use of the property is for either a high- rise apartment or for an office building. Mr. Lane stated that under the existing zoning as an alterna- tive of an office building use the lot could be sub- divided into 14 huilding lots containing at least 7500 square feet each and that the total area of the lot contains 112,850 square feet. Mr. Lane, also, said that in his opinion based upon recent comparable sales for one family building lots the area has a value of $1.00 per square foot but after improvements were made the value of the property would be reduced to $93,000.00 and after the cost of the pile foundations was added the value of the property to a prospective builder of one family homes would be further reduced increasing the price of such houses to prospective purchasers. The Chairman asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak in favor of the application. Mr. George E. Mills, Jr. of 692 Fenimore Road said that he resided in the Town and also had his Real Estate Office in Larchmont at 2051 Palmer Avenue. Mr. Mills stated that the proposed high riser would bring in additional taxes and because they would be luxury apartments would not add any children to the load of the school system. Mr. Mills, also, said that the new building would not impose any load on the Fire Department because it would be fireproof and that Mr. Guadagnolo had put time and effort in his property. Mr. Connelly added that the building would cost about $4,000,000.00 and would bring a tax revenue of ap- proximately $200,000.00. Mr. George Burton of 34 Eagewood Avenue spoke in favor of the application and said he had lived in the vicinity all his life. Mr. Burton stated that when the other apartments were built there was the same opposition and he felt the apartments in the vicinity have not been too much of a burden to the community. Mr. Burton, also, said that he felt the Town should take every action possible to obtain more assessed valuation. Mr. William A. Gunn, Jr. of 99 Madison Avenue said he was President of the Larchmont Hills Association and represented the home owners in opposition to the application. Mr. Gunn said they had three speak- ers; Mr. Gordon Oppenheimer, 20 Lafayette Road; Mr. Hayden Smith, 8 Lafayette Road and Mr. Russell Sch- neider, Jr. of 5 Huguenot Drive. The representatives of the Larchmont Hills Association said they failed to see where the applicant could show any practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship and that Mr. Guad- agnolo knew of the situation when he purchased the property. The speakers pointed out that the vicinity in question is picturesque and the proposed build- ing will destroy its charm. They, also, claim that property values will plummet and the proposed build- ing will bring about 150 new families. The repre- sentatives of the Larchmont Hills Association, also, alleged that the population of the Town is already at its maximum and the proposed apartment will bring hardship to the owners of the adjacent properties. In addition they contended that traffic would be increased and that an apartment of this size will add at least an additional 200 cars. The speakers concluded by saying that an apartment is a commer- cial use of the property and that if the application is allowed others will follow. The Chairman asked for a recess and when the Board convened the Town Attorney, Mr. Johnston stated that he was the legal advisor for the Zoning Board. Mr. Johnston said that the application was being heard in two parts. The first part was to determine as to whether or not a "Use" variance would be allowed and secondly, if permitted, whether non-conforming area requirements shown on the plan for the proposed apartment house would be approved. The Town Attor- ney stated that Judge Dillon in his decision dated February 16, 1968 ruled that the Zoning Board had the jurisdiction to hear this application. Accord- ing to Section 267 of the Town Law the Zoning Board of Appeals is empowered to grant a variance for the "use of land" where there is a showing of unneces- sary hardship. Mr. Johnston stated that a factor in the granting of a use variance concerns the public health and safety of the area and he had the Superintendent of Highways and the Police. Chief of the Town of Mama- roneck there to give their opinions. Mr. William Aitchison, Superintendent of Highways, spoke first and stated that he had examined the plans for the proposed apartment house. Mr. Aitchison said that at present the sewer system would not be able to handle the proposed building but that West- chester County was in the process of putting in a new sewer on Fifth Avenue which will be completed shortly and when finished it would be more than axle- / L G ( quate. Mr. Johnston then asked Police Chief Robert Barasch to speak. Chief Barasch said that he had examined the plan for the proposed apartment house and in his opinion it would not be detrimental to either traffic flow or safety. Mr. Henry Rothman of 22 Lafayette Road stated that Mr. Connelly had made a statement that some of the neighbors had assured Mr. Guadagnolo at the time he applied for permission to build a shopping cen- ter they approved but this was not so. Mr. L. Miralia of 5 Dundee Road stated that he had lived in Larchmont all his life and he was not very sympathetic with Mr. Guadagnolo. Mr. Miralia declared that the applicant had many opportunities to see the property and Mr. Guadagnolo is only interested in becoming rich. Mr. Miralia further stated that there was a restriction that prohibits any struc- ture more than 22 stories and in his opinion even though the proposed building would be luxury apart- ments it would add at least 100 more children to the school system. Mr. Miralia, also, said that it would be necessary to hire additional policemen and firemen which would amount to more than $200,000. proposed tax revenue. Mr. Robert Daelos of 1 Huguenot Drive said he had been a resident of the community for about 8 years and had purchased his home because it was a quiet street. Mr. Daelos stated he feared for the safety of his deaf child as the proposed apartment will bring more than 200 additional cars to the neigh- borhood. Mr. Paul Davidoff of 18 Forest Park Avenue said that there are many families in Westchester on low and moderate incomes and that if the variance is granted a percentage of the units should be set aside for moderate income families. Mr. Davidoff said that the UDC is threatening to overrule local zoning and that the builder could construct units for moderate income families and still make a very good profit. Mr. Peter Fousek of 1294 Palmer Avenue said he was concerned that many residents had not heard of the hearing because there was not sufficient publica- tion in spite of the fact that there are few remain- ing undeveloped areas in the community. Mr. Fred Tarter of 250 Barnard Road said that when he purchased his property he knew there were cer- tain rules and he knew specifically what he could and could not do with his property. Mr. Tarter 1 � 7 said the applicant was requesting a change at the expense of other residents in the area and it would not be in the best interest of the community to do something that will benefit one. Mr. James Kennelley of 17 Huguenot Drive spoke and said that Mr. Guadagnolo had made an investment of about $50,000.00 and he took a risk. Mr. Kennelley stated tt}at he considered the neighborhood a prime area and the homes do sell for about $100,000.00. Mr. Howard Schwartz, who represented the Tax Base and Legislation Committee of the Board of Education dictated a memo to the Secretary in which he stated that their committee is concerned with any develop- ment in the community which will effect the tax base available to the School Board. Mr. Schwartz said that school costs and the tax rate are bound to in- crease and for that reason the Board of Education urges the Town to favor any sensible development which will enhance the tax base. Mr. Schwartz in his memo further stated that although the committee was not entirely familiar with all the details of the application and that there were probably many valid arguments against it but unless the residents are willing to shoulder the increased cost of educa- tion other eources of revenue must be found. Mr. Schwartz, also, said that surveys have indicated that high rent apartment houses generate more tax revenue than they burden the schools with additional pupil cost. Correspondence in opposition was received prior to the meeting and made part of the record from the following: Mrs. Maxine Sanders 42 North Chatsworth Ave. Mr. and Mrs. Frederick A. Bernett 95 Lookout Circle Mr. Louis A. Solomon 256 Barnard Road Mrs. B. Lytton 11 Glen Eagles Drive Mrs. Wallace W. Meyer 6 Bryson Street Mr. Warren L. Serenbetz 48 Lookout Circle Mrs. James Selva 7 Normandy Road Mrs. Lawrence Humphrey 54 Hillside Road Mr. Clarence F. Peterson, Jr. 87 Echo Lane Mr. George L. Newcomb 88 Edgewood Avenue Mr. Ralph P. Bolton 4 Huguenot Drive After further discussion the Chairman announced that the decision would be withheld pending study of the record of the hearing. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meeting it was adjourned at 10:40 P.M. ., L � Rita A. Johnson, Secretary �O g