Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965_04_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD APRIL 28, 1965, IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK POLICE STATION, 11 EDGEWOOD AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. CALL TO ORDER Mr: Eggers, acting as Chairman in the absence of Mr. Bierman, called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Richard Eggers Mr. E. Robert Wassman Mr. Henry E. Mullick Mr. Price H. Topping Absent: Mr. Sydney D. Bierman Also Present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of March 24, 1965 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 the Hearing. The Chairman then requested the secretary to read the first application. APPLICATION NO. 1 - Case 210 Application of Dunkin Foods, Inc. for modification of Article IV, Section 410 Schedule of Regulations for Non-Residential Districts and Article IV, Sec- tion 450.4, "K" and "L", Off-Street Parking Require- ments of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaro- neck so as to allow the construction of a retail store and restaurant having less than the minimum required dimensions for front setback, side setback and rear setback, on the premises located at 1311 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412, Parcel 288, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. 64a The following persons were heard: In favor: Mr. Al. Christoffers 150 Broadway Elizabeth, New Jersey In dpposition: Mr. Irving Keenan 1329 Boston Post Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. & Mrs. Otto Scheuble 3 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. & Mrs. Theodore Purcell 14 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mrs. Richard Lock Rocs Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. William McCarty 7 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mrs. Donato Proscio Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mt. Michael Kiss 18 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Communications:First Westchester National Bank Boston Post Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. Otto Scheuble 3 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Quality Auto Interiors Weaver St. & Boston Post Rd. Larchmont, N.Y. Larchmont Auto Sales Boston Post Rd. & Winthrop Larchmont, N.Y. Larchmont Auto Parts Dist. , Inc. Auto Parts Distributors 24 Post Road, Larchmont, N.Y. Chief Paul Yerick Mamk. Town Police 647 The hearing adjourned from the April 28 meeting was lengthy with vigorous opposition once again voiced:-..by residents of Rock Ridge Road. Mr. Christoffers, representing the applicant stated that the building had been relocated on revised plans but that there was no practical way of positioning the building without re- questing a curb cut on Rock Ridge Road. He further stated that he had written the State Highway Dept. asking the advis- ability of this curb cut, which said dept. approved on the basis that a through traffic flow would be safer than one curb cut. Mr. Keenan, Mr. Purcell, Mr. Scheuble and Mr. McCarty vigor- ously protested the location of the building as proposed since such necessitated a curb cut on Rock Ridge Road, de- creased the distance between residences and an eating es- tablishment with its grease, malodorous smells, refuse, hours of business, etc. and increased potential traffic hazards. Mr. McCarty then requested that the record show that he questioned whether all the drawings submitted received consideration by the Board and sought reassurance that the applicant would adhere to the 10' screening of ever- greens in the rear. Mr. Eggers pointed out that the applicant would have to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. In answer to the points hereinabove raised, Mr. Eggers explained again and again as did Mr. Christoffers that the applicant could build on this lot without a variance if he positioned the store at the front property line on the Boston Post Road, that the plea concerned only the lo- cation of the building at the rear of the lot which appeared preferable in the interests of traffic safety. At the Chairman's request, Mr. Wassman then read communi- cations from First Westchester National Bank, Quality Auto Interiors, Larchmont Auto Sales, Larchmont Auto Parts Dist. ' Inc. , favoring the granting of the application and those of Mr. Otto Scheuble opposing the application and Chief Paul Yerick stating it was inadvisable to have the curb cut on Rock Ridge Road. At this point, Mr. Eggers announced a 5 minute recess. Following the recess, a vote was taken on the application which resulted as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Aye Commissioner Wassman - Naye Commissioner Mullick - Naye Commissioner Topping - Naye 648 The application was therefor denied and the following resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Dunkin Foods, Inc. has submitted an appli- cation for a building permit to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of a retail store and rest- aurant in accord with proposed site and building plans submitted with said application; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the ground that the plans submitted failed to comply with Article IV, Section 410, Sched- ule of Regulations for a Non-Residential District, in particular minimum front setback requirement, minimum side yard requirement; and mimimum rear yard require- ment; and WHEREAS, Dunkin Foods, Inc. has submitted to this Board an application for variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. To have the Dunkin Donut building set back 66' from the farthest point of the front building line would provide advantages to the travelling public in the following re- spects: a. A gradual instead of sharp turn could be used to enter the premises b. Adequate internal auto circulation would be provided. c. Good visibility in both directions of the highway would be provided when leaving the premises. d. It is not possible to maintain required rear set-back of 25 feet and front set-back of 75 feet as well because of the depth of the property. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also 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 denies the application upon the following grounds: 1. That there are no special circumstances or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought which circumstances or dondi- tions are peculiar to such land and which do not apply generally to land in the district. 649 2. That the facts and circumstances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive him of the reasonable use of the land and that the granting of the variance is not necessary for the reasonable use of the land. 3. That the granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance 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. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - Case 211 Application of Dr. & Mrs. Emil Maffucci for modification of a Zon- ing Board Resolution, dated March 24, 1965, so as to permit the construction of a one family dwelling in accordance with a revised building and site plan for the premises located at the easterly end of Dimitri Place, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Parcel 579, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. The following persons were heard: In favor: Mr. Mitchell Glick, Attorney 271 North Avenue New Rochelle, N.Y. In opposition: None Communications: None Mr. Glick representing Dr. Maffucci, explained that the applicant was seeking a revision of the variance granted in February because a revised and improved building plan had since been developed, partly at the suggestion of one of the neighbors, Robert McCoy,:-.an architect and partly because of the dwelling requirements of the owner. He further explained that conditions of the original variance included requirements for a 16 foot setback to the east and a 22 foot setback to the west, whereas the revised plans provided for the side setbacks to be 16 feet on each side. He further pointed out that since it was the neighbors to the east who had voiced objections, the revision should not present any difficulty since to the west, the houses were further away. Mr. McCoy agreed that the revised plans for the dwelling were vastly superior to the original plans and expressed concern only over the possible drainage problems created by locating the new house on the top of a rock hill. He was assured by the applicant's architect, 650 Mr. Pucillo, that there would be,:mo blasting except for utility lines. At this time, Mr. Eggers announced there would be a short recess. Following the recess and further discussion, a vote was taken eii the app'iica'tk n fwHiiirla e lttd ?:. i:d:f """Qre (ecia ed dilly adopted: Commissioner Eggers - Aye Commissioner Wassman - Aye Commissioner Mullick _ Aye Commissioner Toppipg - Naye The application was therefor granted and the following resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Dr. & Mrs. Emil Maffucci have submitted an application for a building permit to the Build- ing Inspector to allow the construction of a one family dwelling that meets the requirements of the Appellant, together with plans; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that building plans and proposed location of dwelling do not comply with approved plans and conditions as stated by the Variance Resolution dated March 24, 1965, (Granted to former owner Fred Krones) ; and WHEREAS, Dr Maffucci has submitted to this Board an application for variance on the ground of practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship for the following reason: 1. The amendments requiring the alter ing of the plans originally submitted to the Board are impossible to comply with and the Appellant, after due con- sideration, feels that his needs are such that the original plans must be changed to those before this Board. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also viewed the property and has heard all per- sons interested in this application after public- ation of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board finds the following: (a) That there are special circumstances 651 and conditions applying to the land and/ or building for which a modification of the 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 sub- equent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b)That the aforesaid circumstances and/or condi- tions are as follows: 1. That the amendments requiring the altering of the plans originally sub- mitted to the Board are impossible to comply with and the appellant, after due consideration, feels that his needs are such that the original plans must be changed to those before the Board. (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 granted to the applicant and that Article V, Section 550.3 be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a one family dwelling on the premises located at the easter- ly side of Dimitri Place, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Parcel 579, in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zon- ing Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaro- neck, and 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 copipleted 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. 652 The secretary then read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 3 - Case 212 Application of Jack Pearson for modification of :Article IV, Section 421.4, Walls and Fences of the Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the erection of 40 L.F. of 6' high solid wood fence along a portion of the southerly side line rather than the required 4' maximum height fence, on the premises located at 8 Pheasant Run, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assessment Map^of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 506, Parcel 334, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. The following persons were heard: In favor: Mr & Mrs. Pearson 8 Pheasant Run Larchmont, N.Y. In opposition: Dr. & Mrs. Murray Wittner 6 Pheasant Run Larchmont, N.Y. Communications: None Mr. Pearson stated that he had erected 40 feet of 6' fence not realizing this to be a violation, in order to provide privacy for his residence located only 13 feet from the property line on a variance granted before he purchased the property. He further stated that there is' a 7 foot high window facing in that direction and a 4 foot fence would not protect his privacy. He also noted, as did Mrs. Pearson, that they have tried to grow an evergreen screen, but the plants died in the rocky soil. Dr. Wittner, in opposing the application, stated that the said fence is an eyesore and that professional land- scape gardeners had offered to guarantee the growth of plantings here which have been ordered. Mr. Pearson then stated that he would be happy to share the expense of the plantings and to paint the fence but that he would like to leave it up until the shrubs grow to that height, to which request Dr. Wittner was not amenable. Mr. Eggers pointed out that the reason the rule is on the books is to eliminate the 'corralling of property" and questioned the need for privacy in this instance, since only the need for privacy constituted grounds for pleading hardship. Following further discussion, a vote was taken result- ing as follows and the following resolution was therefor 653 declared duly adopted: Commissioner Eggers - Naye Commissioner Wassman - Naye Commissioner Mullick - Naye Commissioner Topping - Naye WHEREAS, Jack Pearson has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for the erection of 40 L.F. of 6' high fence along a portion of the southerly side line of premises located at 8 Pheasant Run and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 506, Parcel 334; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the ground that erection of such fence violated Article IV, Section 421.4 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck; and WHEREAS, Jack Pearson has appealed to this Board for modification of the Building Inspector's decision pursuant to Article IV, Section 421.4 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the erection of said fence, WHEREAS, the Board finds that no facts exist sufficient to justify the erection of 40 L.E=mf 6' high fence as requested, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the above application for building permit to erect 40 L.F. of fence be denied. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk in accordance with Section 267 of the Town Law. The Secretary then read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 4 - Case 213 Application of Mrs. William Speyer for modification of Article IV, Section 421.4, Walls and Fences of the Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the installation of 65 L.F. of 4' high chain link fence, the top of which is to extend 6' above existing grade, on the premises located at 1 Dundee Road, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211, Parcel 386, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. The following persons were heard: In favor: Mrs. William Speyer Mr. Joseph Bracie Avon Road Larchmont, N.Y. In opposition: None Communications: None 654 At this point, Mr. Eggers requested to be disqualified due to the fact that he is an adjoining property owner, and re- quested Mr. Topping to act as temporary Chairman. Mr. Topping advised Mrs. Speyer that she could defer her application to the May meeting as only three members would be voting and she would have to have unanimous approval. Mrs. Speyer declined the deferment. Mrs. Speyer stated that she needed a fence all around her 43 roperty so that her husband, an invalid who requires privacy,wwill not be bothered by dogs and youngsters tak- ing a shortcut through her property. She further explained that the particular 65 L.F. of 4'high fence was constructed and if measured from her grade, it would be only two feet above the adjoining grade and thus not provide any protect- ion. At this time, Mr. Eggers was called back into the room to comment on the application as an affected neighbor, and he stated that he thought the fence would not deter dogs, but would deter youngsters who shortcut through there on their way from the village. He further stated that he had no objection to the fence and that although he didn't believe in fences, this particular one had his blessing. Following some further discussion, during which Mr. Tapping stated that were the variance granted the applicant would agree to paint the fence green and maintain it, a vote was taken which resulted as follows and the following resolution was therefor declared duly adopted by a unanimopsvvote: Commissioner Eggers - Abstained Commissioner Wassman- Aye Commissioner Mullick - Aye Commissioner Topping - Aye 655 WHEREAS, Mrs. William Speyer heretofore requested a permit for the erection of 65 L.F. of 4' high chain link fence, the top of which is to extend 6' above existing grade, on the premises located at 1 Dundee Road, Town, and known as Block 211, Parcel 386 on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck; and WHEREAS the Building Inspector refused to grant such permit on the ground that construction or erection of such fence violated Article IV, Section 421.4 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck; and WHEREAS, Mrs. Speyer has appealed to this Board for modification of the Building Inspector's de- cision pursuant to Article IV, Section 421.4 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the erection of said fence; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that permission is granted to Mrs. William Speyer to erect 65 L.F. of 4' high chain link fence, the top of which is to ex- tend 6' above existing grade, on the premises located at 1 Dundee Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 211, Parcel 386 and subject to the follow- ing conditions: 1. That the fence be painted green and maintained that way. FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Board where a variance is granted, the applicants shall ob- tain 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 in accordance with Section 267 of the Town Law. The secretary then read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 5 - Application 214 Application of Frank Casciaro for modification of Article IV, Section 445, Building On Lots Of Less Than Required Size and Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Residence 656 District Regulations so as to allow the construction of a one family dwelling on a corner lot having a lot area of 4700 square feet instead of the required 5000 square feet, an average depth of 94' instead of the re- quired 100 feet and a front setback of 21 feet from Myrtle Blvd. and 15' from Wood Street instead of the required 30 feet minimum front setback from both streets on the premises located at 28 Cooper Lane, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125, Parcel 224, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. It was noted by the secretary that there was a correction on the Public Notice. It should be amended to read "on the premises located at the southeast corner of Wood St. and Myrtle Blvd. The following persons were heard: In favor: Frank Casciaro 28 Cooper Lane Larchmont, N.Y. In opposition: None Communications: None Mr. Casciaro stated that he and his family have owned the corner lot in single and separate ownership since 1922 and after paying taxes for all those years de- cided to build a house on it. The property consists of a lot area of 4700 instead of 5000 square feet; average depth of 94 instead of required 100 feet and front setbacks from Myrtle Blvd. at one point 21 feet and from Wood Street 15 feet instead of the required 30 from both streets. The average depth and the front setbacks are somewhat less than required. It was also pointed out by Mr. Casciaro that the lot located on a corner makes it difficult to obtain re- quired setbacks because of the narrow width of the lot which is only 50' . Following some further discussion, a vote was taken which resulted as follows and the following resolution therefore duly adopted by unanimous vote: Commissioner Eggers - Aye Commissioner Topping - Aye Commissioner Mullick - Aye Commissioner Wassman - Aye WHEREAS, Frank Casciaro has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of a one family dwelling on a corner lot having an area of 4700 square feet instead 657 of the required 5000 square feet, etc. ; WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with Article IV, Section 445 "Building on lots of less than re- quired size"; and Article IV, Section 410 "Sched- ule of District Regulations"; and WHEREAS, Frank Casciaro has submitted to this Board an application for variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hard- ship for the following reasons: 1. Lot was purchased prior to adoption of the present Zoning Ordinance. 2. Due to the narrow width of the corner lot, being only 50 feet wide, a front set- back of 21 ft. from Myrtle Blvd. and 15 ft. from Wood Street, it would be reasonable and proper, since it would be impractical to build a minimum size dwelling having the required rear yard of 25 ft. and minimum side yard of 8 ft. without infringing on light, air and privacy of neighboring property and maintain- ing required street setbacks of 30 ft. 4-_ WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and 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/or build- ings 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. Lot was purchased prior to the adoption of the present Zoning Ordinance. and has been held in single separate ownership. 658 2. Due to the narrow width of the corner lot, being only 50 feet wide, a front setback of 21 ft. from Myrtle Blvd, and 15 ft. from Wood Street, it would be reasonable and proper, since it would be impractical to build a min- imum size dwelling having the required rear yard of 25 ft. and minimum side yard of 8 ft. without infringing on light, air and privacy of neighboring property and maintaining required street setbacks of 30 ft. (C) That the granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Okdinatice and will not be injurious to the neighbor- hood 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 410 and Article IV, Sections 445.1 and 445.2 be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a one family dwelling on a lot area of 4700 instead of the required 5000 square feet and front 21 ft. from Myrtle Blvd, and 15 ft. from Wood St. on the premises located at the southeasterly corner of Myrtle Blvd. and Wood Street and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125, Parcel 224, in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck and FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rulds 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 start- ed 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 Secretary then read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 6 - Application 215 Application of Ferndale Center, Inc. for modification of Article IV, Section 410 Schedule of Regulations for Non-Residential Districts 659 and Article IV, Section 455.1 "Layout and Location of Off- Street Parking Facilities" so as to allow the construction of an addition of 7644 square feet to the rear of the exist- ing building which will increase the total building coverage 4.5% above the maximum allowable 25% and a rear yard of 20' instead of the required 25' with necessary off-street parking facilities located on a lot within 500' from the structure on the premises located at 1310 Boston Post Road, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 410, Parcels 321 and 463, on the grounds of pract- ical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. The following persons were heard: In favor: Mr. Salvatore Pepe 4 Fordal Road Bronxville, N.Y. r o-. nn: Mr. George Forbes, Attorney 199 Main Street White Plains, N.Y. In opposition: None Communications: None Mr. Forbes stated the applicant would like to extend the rear of the building that was previously occupied by a skating rink by adding 7,644 square feet to the rear, which would increase the total building coverage 4.5% above the allowable 25% and reduce the setback at one point at the rear to 20 feet instead of the required 25. Mr. Pepe stated that he need a mimimum of 15,000 square feet to meet the requirements of the prospective tenant, The Post Appli- ance Discount Center of Mamaroneck. Mr. Forbes explained that his applicant would like to go 27%feet further to extend in the rear. He further explained there is ample parking in front and rear and that the rear area is never used for parking and will not interfere with existing operations or with the neighborhood. Mr. Eggers asked if there were any particular reason for just this size and pointed out that if the applicant cut this building' back 5 feet across entire rear he would stay within the 25%feetca14owed Mr. Pepe pointed out that the requirement of the tenant is 12,000 square feet. The 20' back yard is ample and is paved right to the property line. He also pointed out that he could comply with the rear yard requirement of 25' by eliminating a corner of the pro- , posed addition, Mr. Eggers questioned just what this area would be used for and Mr. Pepe replied it would be used for storing appliances, etc. for 660 the discount store. Mr Pepe further stated the discount store would need this space for showing and displaying their merchandise. After some further discussion about loading and unloading facilities for the new structure, Mr Pepe pointed out that there was sufficient room alongside this new addition for these facilities. Mr. Forbes noted that under Article IV, Section 450.1 they will provide additional parking. Following some further discussion, a vote was taken on the application which resulted as follows: Commissioner Eggers - Naye' Commissioner Topping- Naye Commissioner Mullick- Naye Commissioner Wassman- Naye The application was denied and the following resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Ferndale Center, Inc. has submitted an application for a building permit to the Build- ing Inspector to allow the construction of an addition of 7644 square feet to the rear of the existing building, 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 Article IV, Sec- tion 410 "Schedule of Regulations for Non-Resi- dential Districts" and Article IV, Section 445.1 "Layout and Location of Off-Street Parking Facili- ties"; and WHEREAS, Ferndale Center, Inc. has submitted to this Board an application for variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. That the paper street which divides plot D from Plots A and B for all intents and purposes is physically a part thereof so that there would be sufficient land available if plot D were used as part of plot A and B in computing percentage of land coverage. • 2. That Off-Street parking requirements for plot A and B could be provided for on plot D. 3. That due to a canopy in front of the shop- ing center being classified as coverage of land, applicant does not receive any remuneration for canopies and covered walk. 661 WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also viewed the property and has heard all per- sons interested in this application after public- ation of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board denies the applica- tion upon the following grounds: 1. That there are no special circum- stances 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. 2. That the facts and circumstances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would deprive him of the reasonable use of the land and that the granting of the variance is not necessary for the reasonable use of the land. 3. That the granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and would be injurious to the neighborhood and detri- mental to the public welfare. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk in accordance with Section 267 of the Town Law. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meet- ing, it was adjourned at 11:03 p.m. c2. �rra.l c. e- Le Esta E. Davis, Secretary 662