Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964_04_22 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMAID NECK, HELD APRIL 22, 1964, IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK POLICE STATION, 11 EDGEWOOD AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. . PRESENT: Sydney D. Bierman, Chairman Robert B. White E. Robert Wassman Henry E. Mullick Richard Eggers ALSO PRESENT: William Paonessa, Building Inspector MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of March 25, 1964 were approved, as corrected, on motion duly made and seconded. HEARING The Chairman declared the hearing open and the secretary presented the affidavit of publication of the notice of the hearing in the official news- paper of the Town of Mamaroneck, The Daily Times, on April 16, 1964. OLD BUSINESS - S. N. PETCHERS CO. APPLICATION The Chairman stated decision on the application had been deferred at the March 25, 1964 meeting following a hearing at which Mr. Fanelli, the attorney representing S. N. Petchers, termed the parking requirement under the present Ordinance was unworkable. Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Fanelli if he had anything further to add in addi- tion to the factual information presented at the last hearing. Mr. Fanelli presented a topographical survey of the site showing the contour of the rocks which had been removed, the portion of property which had been filled in and a superimposed sketch showing the approximate location of the building. He stated the back portion of the property, which had been filled in, could be excavated for basement space, but forward to this area, the front of the pro- posed building, blasting would have to be done. This would be a great hard- ship on Mr. Petchers. In addition, he submitted an affidavit from John W. Lane, a licensed real estate broker, of 180 Boston Post Road, Larchmont, New York in which Mr. Lane stated that due to the cost that was incurred in re- moving the rock to a level grade, the rock formation presently existing in the property and the fact that in putting this type of improvement would be advantageous to the municipality from a standpoint of tax return, both to the School Board and the Town, it was his belief that in the best interests of all concerned, the variance should be granted. At the suggestion of Mr. Bierman, Mr. & Mrs. Irving Taub reviewed the affidavit as well as the Board members. Mr. Bierman then presented both the topographical survey and the affidavit to the secretary which were received and filed for the record. 539 Mr. Fanelli then stated that as far as the parking question was concerned, the Zoning Ordinance is so drawn that it is a mathematical impossibility to conform with all the requirements. He said he had discussed the problem with Mr. Johnston, the Town Attorney, approximately April 3 , 1964, who was reco- mmending to the Town Council and the Planning Board that change be made in the parking requirements. The suggested change would be from 100-feet to 200-feet per one parking space. In addition he stated that in dealing with many of the supermarkets, the supermarkets feel that a 4 to 1 parking ratio is sufficient however the present Ordinance of one car per 100-feet is a 10 to 1 ratio and not reasonable. He said Mr. Johnson agreed with him in this respect. Mr. Johnston was not present to substantiate these remarks. Mr. Eggers questioned whether Mr. Petchers was aware of the Zoning Ordi- nances when he purchased the property and if he was aware of the rock condi- tion, etc. Mr. Petchers and Mr. Fanelli replied yes. Mr. Bierman then asked Mr. Fanelli to summarize, for the Board, what facts existed, in his view, to constitute a practical difficulty which would have a favorable ruling. Mr. Fanelli stated the following reasons: 1. $50,000.00 had already been incurred in leveling off the property and in limiting his client to the 25% building coverage it would create a hardship on his client as it would not permit him to re- cover his investment . 2. The parking requirement is mathematically impossible to comply with under the present Ordinance as no land area would remain for the required parking spaces if his client had to provide a load- ing zone, sidewalks and plantings. At this point Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Fanelli if the predicament his client found himself in wasn't largely controlled and dictated to by his choice of what type of building he wanted to put on the property. Mr. Fanelli replied that he doubted this very much and regardless of whiat type of building was erected, the parking problem would still remain. Mr. Bierman stated this was Mr. Fanelli's clients choice since there were other available courses he could take. Mr. Fanelli replied that the pro- posed building was a permitted use which the Zoning Ordinance provides for and could be used in a permitted manner. Mr. Wassman questioned if the problem here wasn't that in reducing the size of the building, his client would not make enough money. Mr. Fanelli stated he was not saying that, but that the Zoning Ordinance does say his client can build this type of building. Mr. Eggers pointed out that since the applicant had a coverage of 18,040 square feet and if the building was reduced in size (by 1200 square feet) , he could come within the coverage requirement and was unable to see what made the 1200 square feet so important. Mr. Fanelli stated the reason was to have a proper size supermarket and smaller stores for the public to come into. Mr. Eggers then asked if it wasn't true that the stores would be rented or sold on a square foot basis and that it would be more profitable to have more space rather than conform to the Zoning Ordinance. Both Mr. Petchers and Mr. Fanelli agreed that this was true, but necessary as there was an economic factor here and they had already negotiated with three supermarkets who all required this area. 540 I � Both Mr. Eggers and Mr. Mullick suggested the applicant eliminate one or two of the smaller proposed stores. Mr. Bierman also suggested to the appli- cant that if he changed his choice to a different type of operation, it might relieve the difference with the Zoning Ordinance . Mr. Fanelli stated he didn't think any of these suggestions would help relieve the situation. At this point Mr. Fanelli submitted a sketch which would bring the pro- posed building into the 25% coverage requirement . The sketch cut the super- market dimensions from 120' x 100' to 113 ' x 100' and the four stores from 19' x 80' to 17' x 75' . He estimated that 122 cars could be accommodated. Mr. Eggers asked if the revised scheme was acceptable to his client to which Mr. Petchers replied yes, but it would be a hardship as he would lose approximately $6000.00. Mr. Bierman asked if anyone had any statistics for the record as to the parking spaces required for a center such as this one and Mr. Fanelli replied it was almost imponderable to him. Mr. Bierman stated he was not pursuaded that there weren't such surveys on parking requirements although he was not sure of how accurate they would be, etc. Mr. Bierman suggested the possibility of Mr. Petchers withdrawing his application until the Planning Board and the Town Council decided to change the Zoning Ordinance in regard to parking, etc. Mr. Fanelli stated that time is very valuable now and he would not want to wait that long, etc. Mr. Bierman asked Mr. & Mrs. Taub if they had anything further to add to their opposition expressed at the last meeting and they replied no. Mr. White showed Mr. Taub the revised sketch and explained same to him. Mr. Bierman pointed out, to Mr. Taub, that the applicant proposed to reduce the size of h is building in the manner indicated on the sketch and the building coverage would not exceed the 25% limitation in the Ordinance. The reduction in turn increased the amount of available parking spaces to 122 and a rough mathemati- cal calculation shows 144 spaces actually are required. In addition to the parking spaces required, the Ordinance also requires a loading zone, equiva- lent to 5 parking spaces and also a 10-foot planting strip in the rear, equivalent to 9 more spaces, and that the actual difference in provision and requirement was about 20 spaces. Mr. Taub stated he had no objection to the parking spaces as proposed on the new sketch as long as the proper use, cover- age and building requirements were practiced. Following a fifteen minute recess, declared by the Board, Mr. Bierman stated an anonymous letter, directed to this application, had been received and because it was anonymous it would not be put into the record other than the fact that it had been received. Mr. Bierman then stated that the Board had studied the revised sketch submitted by Mr. Fanelli and that mathematically it still exceeded the 25% coverage, etc. and asked if the applicant intended to amend his application so that the proposed structure would be limited to a 25% coverage . If so, the Board would consider it in this manner and would consider the application for a variance to exceed the 25% coverage as withdrawn. In addition, he asked if the applicant would consider, irrespective of the effect it would have on the coverage required for the structure, a minimum of 125 parking spaces. 541 Mr. Fanelli could not understand how the Board had computed the addi- tional space for three cars, but would withdraw the application of variance to exceed 25% coverage and comply as requested provided Mr. Petcher's archi- tect concluded it was possible and if not right, the applicant could come back before the Board. Mr. Bierman agreed that this was within the Zoning Ordinance and would not be foreclosed. He also asked if Mr. Fanelli was agreeable that any variance the Board might issue be effective and valid only so long as the proposed structure was used for retail stores as shown on the proposed plan. Mr. Fanelli asked that if in the future the applicant wanted to change to a different use which required less than the Ordinance required and if the Building Inspector approved, would there be a necessity to come before the Board again. Mr. Bierman said no it would not be necessary however the Board wanted the facilities, as shown on the plan, adhered to, i.e. bumper guards, planting, lighting and fencing. Mr. Fanelli stated they would comply with all facilities as shown, but might have to change the shape of the building. After a brief discussion, a vote was taken which resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner Eggers Aye Commissioner White Aye Commissioner Wessman Aye Commissioner Mullick Aye The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, S. N. Petchers, President of Spartan Associates, has submitted an application to allow the construction of retail stores, having a coverage of not more than 25% and off-street parking facilities for a minimum of 125 cars in a "B" Business District, to the Building Inspector together with plans ; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the ground that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article IV, Section 450.4 which deals with minimum number of off street parking spaces for the proposed use of structure, etc. ; and WHEREAS, S. N. Petchers, President of Spartan Associates, has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. That Section 450.4, Subdivision L, in providing for one parking space for each 100 sq. ft. of floor space, which in the applicant's case would be 180 spaces, is not logical and would be more intelligent to require one space for each 100 sq. ft. of sales area. This then would eliminate unnecessary parking spaces for the area which would be used for storage and not open to the public. 2. That it is not possible to construct a building which would have the allowable building coverage and still have the required number of parking spaces under the present Ordinance. 542 3. The applicant has a contract with a first-class supermarket to occupy the main portion of the proposed building and the other four smaller stores would be occupied by normal retail outlets. The premises to be constructed would be of modern type with a very attractive appearance which would be a distinct asset to the neighborhood and, since there would be parking space for 108 cars, no traffic difficulty would be created in this area. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also has viewed the property and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds the following: (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land and/or building for which a variance is sought, which circumstances and/or conditions are peculiar to such land and/or building and do not apply generally to the land and/or buildings 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 the aforesaid circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. That the unuetaipbopography of this parcel and the re- quirement to maintain a rear buffer zone, make it difficult and impractical to provide the number of off-street parking spaces prescribed by this Ordinance for the proposed struc- ture thereof. 2. That the proposed retail store use of the building, as shown on the plans, is of such a nature that the off-street parking for a minimum of 125 cars is deemed adequate. which said circumstances and or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Section 450.4 would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land and/or building and that for these reasons the granting of the variance is necessary for the reasonable use of the land and/or building and that the variance as granted by the 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 450.4 be varied and modified so as to allow the construc- tion of a structure for retail store use, having a lot area coverage of not more than 25%, having a minimum of 125 spaces for off-street parking, on the premises located at 36 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck. as Block 411, Parcel 196, in strict conformance with the plans filed with the application, and amended at the April 22, 1964 hearing, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck and subject to the following conditions: 543 1. That the building coverage shall not exceed 25% of the lot area. 2. That the proposed structure be limited to one story. 3. That this variance shall cease and expire forthwith upon any change in use of the proposed structure which requires, under this Ordinance, more than 125 spaces for off-street parking. FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zon- ing Board 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. A building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years 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 requested the secretary to read the first application. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 182 Application of Raymond O'Keefe for modification of Article IV, Section 410 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, Schedule of Residence District Regulations for an R-6 District, Note A, so as to allow the construc- tion of an addition, over an existing room, at the dwelling located at 15 Alden Road having a non-confirming set back of 29.96-feet from Copley Road and 26.25-feet set back from Alden Road rather than the minimum required front set back of 30-feet from both streets on the premises known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Parcel 757 on the grounds of practicial difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Raymond P. O'Keefe 15 Alden Road Larchmont, New York In Opposition: None Communications: None Mr. O'Keefe, representing himself, appeared and submitted plans for the proposed addition over an existing sunroom. He explained the addition was required to provide a third bedroom for two of his six children, to allow the room to be reached from an existing door at the front bedroom and to balance the side view of the house architecturally. In placing this addition over the existing sunroom all of these things would be accomplished. He added that he had been informed of no objection from any of his neighbors. Mr. Bierman asked how long Mr. O'Keefe had resided in the house and he replied six years, however the house is approximately 40 years old. Mr. White asked what the space on the fird floor was used for and Mr. O'Keefe stated his father-in-law occupied a bedroom there. After some further discussion, a vote was taken which resulted as follows: 544 Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner Wassman Aye Commissioner Mullick Aye Commissioner White Aye Commissioner Eggers Aye The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Raymond P. O'Keefe has submitted an application for a building per- mit to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of an addition, over an existing room, at the existing dwelling, together with plans; and WHEREAS the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the ground that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article IV, Section 410 of said Ordinance, which provides for set backs, side yards, etc. ; and WHEREAS, Raymond P. O'Keefe has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. To provide a third bedroom for two of his six children. 2. To allow the room to be reached from an existing door at the front bedroom. 3. To balance the side view of the house architecturally. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also has viewed the property and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds the following: (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land and/or building for which a variance is sought, which circumstances and/or conditions are peculiar to such land and/or building and do not apply generally to the land and/or buildings 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 the aforesaid circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. A third bedroom for two of his six children is required. and will allow the room to be reached from existing door at a front bedroom. 2. In placing the addition over the existing sunroom, it will balance the side view of the house architecturally. (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 545 FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted to the applicant and that Article IV, Section 410 be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of an addition, over an existing room, at the existing dwelling, having a non-conforming set back of 29.96-feet from Copley Road and 26.25-feet set back from Alden Road, on the premises located at 15 Alden Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Parcel 757, in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application, and amended, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck and subject to the following conditions: None FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Board 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. A building permit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years 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 ad- journed at 10:20 p.m. . .. -tC',✓zi— uJ, 546