Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975_06_18 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD JUNE 18, 1975, IN THE AUDITORIUM OF THE WEAVER STREET FIREHOUSE, WEAVER STREET AND EDGEWOOD 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. E. Robert Wassman Mr. Andrew W. Boraczek Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty Mr. Lawrence G. Bodkin, Jr. Also present: Mr. James J. Johnston, Town Attorney Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 424 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-conforming apartment building and off-street parking facility on a parcel of land Zoned OB-2 on the premises located at 2 Garfield Street and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 133 Parcel 148 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnec- essary hardship. THIS APPLICATION IS A REHEARING OF CASE 372 HEARD ON FEB- RUARY 8, 1973 AND POSTPONED FROM MAY 21 , 1975 TO JUNE 18, 1975. Mr. Eggers introduced the Board Members and others sit- ting at the table. He then asked Mr. Wassman to read a prepared statement which states that the application is a rehearing of a case that had been heard on February 8, 1973 and denied. By order of Judge O' Gorman the petition was remanded to the Zoning Board and a hearing was scheduled for May 21 , 1975. By an injunction granted by Judge Caruso the hearing was postponed to this date with the understanding that the testimony of both sides would be heard tonight and if the petition were to be granted at this meeting a second hearing having to do with the specific plans would be heard on July 9, 1975. The Chairman advised that all questions and answers would be heard from the podium and requested that there be no repetition. He further said the only cross-examination would be by Mr. Forbes , the Attorney representing the Larchmont Hills Association; Mr. Frank Connelly, the At- torney for the applicant and members of the Board. Mr. Frank Connelly, the Attorney for the applicant of 249 Huguenot Street, New Rochelle, said he wanted to in- troduce the transcript of the prior hearing held on Feb- ruary 8, 1973, but the Chairman declined this offer point- ing out that the Board already had the transcript and that they were sitting as a different Board. Mr. Eggers stated that the reason for the rehearing of the case was because the testimony and affidavits that had been pre- sented at the prior hearing had to be expanded upon by order of the Court. Mr. Ferrarone, who was Mr. Connelly' s first witness, stated he is an Appraiser for Lane Appraisals of Larchmont and his affidavit was marked Exhibit "A" . On examination, Mr. Ferrarone said that, in his opinion, he estimated the value of the Guadagnolo property at $1 .00 per square foot or $112,750. with a deduction for road installation at $35.00 per lin. ft. so that there was a net value of $93,500. Mr. Ferrarone stated that because portions of the roadbed of Adams Street would have to be purchased from property owners he did not believe any total value could be set. Mr. Connelly questioned Mr. Ferrarone as to the other permitted uses of the property and Mr. Ferra- rone said church, school , club, firehouse, police station and other non-profit uses, etc. Mr. Connelly asked Mr. Ferrarone his opinion of the value of the property if an office building was to be constructed thereon and Mr. Ferrarone said it would be three dollars a square foot or approximately $350,000. to $400,000. Mr. Connelly then stated that the applicant proposed to build a 7 story apartment house having 152 units which would be a compatible use in the area since there are presently 9 apartment buildings in the neighborhood as well as commercial pro- perties. On cross examination, Mr. Forbes questioned Mr. Ferrarone as to what he based his estimated value of $112,750. on and Mr. Ferrarone said it was based on the sale of three other properties in the area. Mr. Forbes, also, asked Mr. Ferrarone as to what he had based his cost for road construction and Mr. Ferrarone said his estimate was low because sewer, water and gas lines are already installed on the property. Mr. Forbes said that the comments in reference to the neighborhood being commercial in his opinion are false because the property in question is closer to the residential area than any of the apartments or commercial area referred to. A question was raised as to why the property cannot be used for one family houses and it was claimed that it would be difficult because of the cost involved for the owner to realize his invest- ments which he claims to be about $280,000. It was pointed out that Mr. Guadagnolo had purchased the property in five separate transactions at a cost of $52,000. and the applicant had done a lot of work since he had purchased the property. 1 -„.21 Mr. Connelly offered a judgment signed by Judge Cerrato in which the applicant's assessment was corrected, he then asked Mr. Elliott Feiden, an Engineer, to speak. Mr. Feiden said he was a Consulting Structural Engineer with the firm of Throop and Feiden of 630 Third Avenue, New York and stated that he had examined the log of nine borings made on the site. He stated that six of the nine borings indicate a compressible layer of silt, vegatation, bog and roots and all nine borings indicate that the site is overlain with fill . Mr. Feiden further said that, in his opinion, one family houses could be built in the vicinity of borings 1 ,2 and 3 with ordinary foundations and the remaining six borings sites would require piles. Mr. Feiden, also, said that the pile foundations would increase the cost of one family homes but stated it was hard to estimate how much as it would depend on the type of house. Mr. Forbes cross-examined Mr. Feiden and drew attention to the fact that each boring has a different characteristic, and Members of the Board asked questions regarding the borings. Mr. Eggers asked Mr. Connelly to explain to the Board and those present whether there had been any attempt by Mr. Guadagnolo to sell the property for any other usage. Mr. Connelly stated that in 1968, after lengthy negotia- tions, the property was offered to the Town for $282,000. but the Town then said they did not have the money. After that Mr. Guadagnolo entered into a contract with the Credit Services, Inc. for the purchase of the property for an office building for Longines for $410,000. contingent upon the removal of a restrictive covenant. Mr. Connelly said that the Town and others had opposed the removal of the covenant and that the Judge ruled that no office building could be built on the property. Mr. Eggers then asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak in favor of the application. Mr. Edmund Van Hook of 198 Weaver Street said it appeared to him that since Mr. Guadagnolo had purchased the property 20 years ago and paid taxes for that time he should be able to receive a return on the property for the purpose he is requesting. Mr. Wassman read a letter from a tenant in an apartment stating that she felt there was a real need for luxury housing in the community and approved of the application. Mr. Wassman questioned Mr. Ferrarone as to what the value of the property would be if 14 one family residences, which are a permitted use, were to be built on the site. Mr. Connelly replied and said that it would depend on the builder and a lot of other things. The Chairman called a short recess and when the Board reconvened Mr. Eggers said that Mr. Forbes , an Attorney of 7 Woodland Avenue, Larchmount representing the Larch- mont Hills Civic Association would present six witnesses. i i. 4' The first speaker was Mr. Russell Schneider, Jr. of 5 Huguenot Drive, President of the Larchmont Hills Civic Association who stated that there are 250 owners of one family houses in the association. Mr. Schneider said the main reason for their objecting to the instant appli- cation was that the use proposed would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding neighborhood and that some 200 or more property owners would suffer loss of privacy. He, also, stated that there would be an increase in traf- fic, and even though it would bring in additional taxes certain offsets should be kept in mind as the Town would have to provide additional services for approximately 350 more residents. Mr. Forbes presented his next witness who was Mr. William P. Widulski , a Licensed Professional Engineer of 37 Mal- verne Lane, Scarsdale, who stated he had designed and supervised the construction of piling foundations for single family and multi-family dwellings in Westchester County for over ten years. Mr. Widulski said he had ex- amined the test boring report and had inspected the pro- perty. According to his interpretation and reading of the report 7 one family homes could be built without foun- dation piling on lots of 7500 sq. ft. and the remaining 7 or 8 houses would require some piling foundations. Mr. Widulski stated that the additional cost for piling would be approximately 2 to 4 thousand dollars per house depending upon the size of the house and the actual length of piling used and the contractor could offset this extra cost by saving on other items in the construction. Mr. Widulski , further stated that he estimated the total amount of fill on the property to be approximately 19,000 cubic yards. Mr. Widulski said that any attempt to lower the ground water would alter the overburden stress conditions and endanger the existing utilities, roadway construction and possibly neighboring structures. In conclusion, Mr. Widulski said that any structure larger than one family houses would require very extensive piling and the plans for the proposed multi-family dwelling shows a proposed basement which occupies a majority of the buildable area. This would result in construction below the water table and is very costly. On cross examination, Mr. Connelly asked Mr. Widulski some questions and it was suggested that whether an office building, private homes or one family dwellingswere built it would not effect the marketability of the property. After a discussion in reference to the dewatering of the property it was brought to the attention of the Board that the purpose of this hearing was to make a determina- tion on the "use" of the property. Mr. Richard Wolff of 176 Mamaroneck, White Plains, New York, who is a licensed Real Estate Broker, was Mr. Forbes next witness. He stated that he had examined the subject neighborhood and surrounding property and that he had determined a multi-family high rise apaprtment would have a negative effect on the immediate surrounding area. Mr. Wolff, in his analysis, stated that the Town is pri- marily one family residential in character although there are some business and industrial uses and some multi-fam- ily apartments. Mr. Wolff said that the homes in the immediate neighborhood are 40 to 50 years old and well cared for. He further stated that his study of recent sales in the neighborhood reflected price ranges for a half dozen homes from $55,000. in 1972 to $77,500. in 1974 and these figures showed that the values in the neigh- borhood are on the ascent with very few homes available. Mr. Wolff, also, said that in June 1972 a lot on North Chatsworth Avenue sold for $10,500. and due to inflation and improvments on the site in question the lot would have a value of $15,000. per lot or a total for the entire property of $210,000. Because of the need of some pil- ing and the finishing of Adams Street an allowance of $50,000. to $60,000. would leave a fair market value of $150,000. Mr. Wolff went on to say that in his study he found that the price level of homes abutting apartment houses is approximately 22.8% lower in price than those that are not so situated. The construction of a high rise building on the subject property would block the view of the residents, he added. Mr. Forbes' next witness was Mr. Frederick Reuter of the firm of McCrosky-Reuter with offices at 515 Johnson Ave- nue, Bohemia, New York, who are Community and Regional Planning Consultants. Mr. Reuter stated that he had sur- veyed the site, examined the history of the zoning in the area, the site plans and tax maps and found that prior to the revision of the Zoning Ordinance in 1959 the site was zoned as residential one family. Mr. Reuter said that when the change in zoning was made the parcel was zoned OB-2 which allows an office building or R-7.5 One Family Residential dwelling. Mr. Reuter further stated that both the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan stated that apartment areas, particularly, tower apartments, are not to be expanded and that if this use variance were allowed it would radically increase the dwelling popula- tion density. Additionally he said the traffic generated by the apartment would increase the traffic problems at the nearby intersections. Mr. Connelly stated that at the previous hearing Chief Barasch, of the Mamaroneck Town Police, had testified that the proposed apartment would not cause any undue burden as far as traffic is concerned. Mr. Hayden Smith of 8 Lafayette Road was the last speaker for the property owners and stated that from the facts available the only hardship the applicant has is clearly self-created. Mr. Smith queried as to whether Mr. Guad- agnolo was entitled to any relief if his hardship is self- created. He said the applicant had spoken with various neighborhood groups before he had purchased the land and obviously had made a bad investment. He maintained that at the time was interested in buying the property Mr. Guadagnolo had an offer from Longines and was not inter- ested in the sale to the Town after that. Mrs. Paula Willey, President of the League of Women Voters, spoke and said that the decision must be carefully weighed because of the few remaining open spaces in the Community. Mrs. Willey said though pressures for increased tax revenues are great the decision must be based on the need and best use. She further stated that the Planning Boards of the Town of Mamaroneck and Village of Larchmont have been examining Community plans in an attempt to update them and the League of Women Voters commends these efforts and urges they include thorough assessments of town-wide needs and plans to meet them. Mr. John Coughlin of 35 Byron Lane said he recalled the hearing that was held 20 years ago and also the screaming and yelling when the Thruway and Washington Square apart- ments were built and what would happen to the Town. Mr. Coughlin stated he had sympathy for his friends on Lafa- yette Road but has served on the school budget committee for the last three years and there are real problems for all in the community. In conclusion, Mr. Coughlin said that the Board should think of the entire Town and not of the people most immediately affected. Mr. Steven Goodman of 4 Lafayette Road said he lived about 100 yards north of the subject property and bought his house in 1973. Mr. Goodman said his lot is 7,500 square feet and he paid $73,500. The Chairman advised that the Board was not going to render a decision at this time, but would do so before July 9th, the date for the next meeting set by the Court. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meet- ing it was adjourned at 11 :55 P.M. ita A. Johns , Secretary