Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964_08_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD AUGUST 26, 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 8:10 p.m. . PRESENT: Sydney D. Bierman, Chairman Robert B. White Henry E. Mullick E. Robert Wassman ABSENT: Richard Eggers ALSO PRESENT: William Paonessa, Building Inspector MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of July 22, 1964 were approved on motion duly made and seconded. 1965 BUDGET REQUEST The Board discussed the 1965 Budget and requested the secretary to sub- mit their recommendations, as noted by the Chairman, to the Supervisor's Office. During this discussion, Mr. Paonessa suggested to the Board that the fees presently charged in applying for a variance were inadequate and should be increased to cover the expenses involved. The expenses referred to were the publication of the notice of the hearing in The Daily Times, the paper and postage used in mailing notices to adjoining property owners for each case and the copies of pertinent material involved on each case to the mem- bers of the Board. Following some further discussion, and by unanimous approval, the follow- ing resolution was adopted: RESOLVED, that the Town of Mamaroneck Zoning Board of Appeals recommends to the Town Board that the fees presently charged, in applying for a variance, be increased to cover preparation costs of advertising and mailing notices to adjoining property owners, etc. , FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Board does not feel an increase from $10.00, presently being charged, to $15.00 would be excessive. The secretary was directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Town Board. HEARING: The Chairman declared the hearing open and the secretary presented the affidavit of publication of the notice of publication of the notice of the hearing in the official newspaper of the Town of Mamaroneck, The Daily Times, on August 19, 1964. 567 The Chairman requested the secretary to read the first application. S APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 189 Application of J. C. Baity for modification of Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Residence District Regulations, Note "D", of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, so as to allow the construction of an unattached accessory building (playhouse) in an R-15 Residence District having less than the minimum required set back of 40-feet from the street property line on the premises located at 19 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 106, Parcel 525 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: John C. & Jean Baity 19 Bonnie Way Larchmont, New York Communications: Petition in favor, signed by ten neighbors In Opposition: None. Mr. Baity, representing himself, appeared and submitted photographs of the playhouse and a plot plan of the property. He said the 5' x 7' , 5 1/2' high playhouse had been placed in its present position in the belief that it complied with the 40-ft. set back from the front property line and the 5-ft. side yard set back. The house, though not a permanent structure, is solidly built and well shielded by shrubberty on two sides. It rests on cement blocks, weights approximately 600# and has been kept in condition comparable with the surround- ing area. In addition, it has three coats of paint on it, storm and screen windows and is used by all the children in the neighborhood. He further stated that since there were not sidewalks or play area in the neighborhood, he felt it was good protection for the children. He had spoken to his neighbors and they agreen the playhouse was good for the children and they had in fact signed a petition approving the house. This petition was re- ceived and filed for the record. In addition he said that a rock formation behind his house prevented him from relocating the playhouse and the other available space was taken up by a swing. The Chairman questioned that there seemed no other alternative other than to tear the playhouse down and Mr. ,Baity replied that there is none that is economical. There is a rose garden on the property where this could be placed and be within the zoning requirements, however this would have to be torn out and would be a great expense. Mr. Bierman noted that the outside wall of the playhouse was blistered and asked if the rose garden didn't block view of road when coming out of driveway. Mr. Baity stated the blistering was recent and he planned to have fixed. As far as the garden obstructing his view, etc. , he said they were extremely careful due to the number of children in the neighborhood. 568 Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Baity if he entertained the relocation of the plantings. The applicant said this could be done, but blocking of view would still exist. Mr. Wassman suggested the swings and the playhouse be switched which would then bring the playhouse within the zoning requirements and would not present an obstruction of view as presently exists. Mr. Baity felt this would then place the playhouse out in the open and would be entirely visible from the road. Mr. Bierman asked the applicant if he would consider an alternate site for the playhouse and he replied this would have less desirability to both he and the neighbors. Mrs. Baity stated she had brought the petition, submitted earlier, around to her neighbors and even the ones without children said they loved the playhouse and felt the present location of this and the swings were very satisfactory. Following some further discussion, a vote was taken which resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Naye Commissioner White Naye Commissioner Wassman Naye Commissioner Mullick Naye. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, J. C. Baity, has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for the construction of a 5-foot x 7-foot, un- attached accessory building, at theexisting 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, Note "D" of said Ordinance, which provides for heights, locations, etc. of unattached accessory buildings; and WHEREAS, J. C. Baity has submitted to this Board an application for variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. There is no other place where the playhouse can be located on the premises since almost the entire rear of the house is covered by a rock formation, and the other side of the house is approximately 5-feet from the property line. 2. The playhouse would tend to remove the children from the danger of playing out in the streets as there are no sidewalks in the area. 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 569 RESOLVED, that this Board denied 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 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 detrimental to the public welfare. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk in accord- ance with Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the second application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 190 Application of Robert J. Dolin, Vice President of Handyman East Inc. for modification of Article IV, Section 450.4, Off-Street Parking Require- ments for Retail or Service Business, of the Zoning Ordnance of the Town of Mamaroneck so as to allow the construction of an off-street parking area having parking facilities for nine cars rather than the minimum required parking facilities for the proposed use which requires sixteen cars on the premises located at Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 410, Parcel 1 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Robert J. Dolin 16 Church Street Greenwich, Connecticut Neal M. Leary Wending Lane Greenwich, Connecticut In Opposition: Mr. & Mrs. Wm. F. Gartland 3 .Winthrop Avenue Larchmont, New York Alfred Larson 7 Winthrop Avenue Larchmont, New York Joseph Tighe 10 Winthrop Avenue Larchmont, New York A. Fuhrmann, Jr. 11 Winthrop Avenue Larchmont, New York John McErlean 16 Winthrop Avenue Larchmont, New York William Treasurer 22 Plymouth Street Larchmont, New York Mrs. Harry G. Peer 12 Winthrop Avenue Larchmont, New York 570 Mr. A. Lerza 8 Winthrop Avenue Larchmont, New York Communications: None Mr. Dolin, Vice President of Handyman East Inc. , appeared and presented plans for construction of a building for retail stores and provisions for a parking lot. Mr. Bierman asked if Handyman East was the owner of the property on which they planned to build. Mr. Dolin stated that they did not own the property - they had a deposit on it only. The purchase of the property was based on whether a variance would be granted. Mr. Bierman asked if Mr. Dolin had the contract with him shown these details, but he was only able to submit letters from the broker with details of title search, etc. These were reviewed by the Board and returned to Mr. Dolin. The Chairman asked the applicant if he was correct in stating that Handy- man East was a contract vendee under a contract with the present owner Foster & Kleiser who was apparently the current owner of record and that the con- tract was subject to and contingent upon obtaining approval of the application that was now before the Board. Mr. Dolin stated this was correct. Mr. Dolin stated that the reason the variance was required was that on the back piece of the land there is an extensive rock formation and it would not be feasible to blast . The Chairman asked what the parking space requirement actually was. Mr. Dolin explained that the Town Ordinance requires one space for every 100 square feet of area in a retail store and Handyman, which will be 1,532 square feet, would need 16 spaces. To get the required spaces, Handyman would have to blast rocks toward the rear of the lot. The cost of this would be pro- hibitive to a small outlet like Handyman. Mr. White questioned what the nature of the business was and how many employees would be on the premises . Mr. Dolin explained that Handyman would be a hardware store that caters to the do-it-yourselfer. They would carry a limited amount of light stock as deliveries replacing the exact quantity of hardware sold each day would be made the following morning from their warehouse on Halstead Avenue in Mamaro- neck. The average number of parkers in one day, during the week, would be ten and maybe twenty on Saturdays. In addition,he said, there would be only one employee on the premises at all times. The Chairman questioned Mr. Dolin's statement of it not being feasible to blast and cited that the property on which Cadillac was located had been blasted and had given Cadillac a lot more use of the property. Mr. Dolin stated that Cadillac was in a much larger business and had more money than Handyman had. It was further established by the Chairman and Mr. Mullick that Handyman is a chain store. Mr. Dolin explained that the average hardware store 's in- ventory is $70,000.00 while Handyman's would be $12,000.00. The total invest- ment in the store would be $40,000.00 of which $25,000.00 would be financed 571 by bank mortgage with the corporation and the franchisee splitting the re- maining cost. Adding $7,500.00 to $10,000.00 for blasting would be too costly. Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Dolin who had given him the blasting estimate. He said he did not have a written estimate with him. Mr. Bierman then asked him how far back Handyman would blast and Mr. Dolin replied that his company would leave a 25-foot buffer with residential property, as the law provides. Mr. Bierman explained that only a 10-foot buffer is required by law and if the estimate Mr. Dolin had was based on leaving 25-feet of rock it was too high. Neal M. Leary, another Handyman executive, appeared and emphasized the fact that blasting would not be feasible. Both Mr. Bierman and Mr. White explained that the Board was worried about the appearance and traffic problem this might create and that even with thruways and all, there still exists traffic problems on the Boston Post Road. In addition where Handyman's operation would require only nine parking spaces, it might be sold later to another type of operation which would require more spaces, etc. Mr. Bierman then asked what would Handyman do if the structure did not work out financially and Mr. Dolin explained that they were on a franchise deal and could not possibly have a loss. Following some further discussion on blasting, Mr. Gartland appeared in opposition and stated that there is already a problem on his street, Win- throp Avenue, with workers from the Post Road auto stores parking there. Although Winthrop is one-way going out toward the Post Road, many cars go up Weaver Street and across Plymouth Road to exit by Winthrop and beat the traffic light. Mrs. Gartland also appeared and concurred with her husband's objections. Alfred Larson, appeared in opposition, said that based on his own ex- perience with R. G. Brewer Inc. , business is booming. He predicted Handyman would take on more employees and make deliveries. Joseph Tighe appeared in opposition and stated that Winthrop Avenue is not very wide and with cars parked along the curb it would be very hazardous to have cars go through the street as there would be an overflow from various business on Boston Post Road. He felt that Mr. Dolin's statements regarding only 9 or 10 cars a day was inaccurate as there must be volume in order to make out. Mr. Bierman explained that the Board was not there to authorize any overflow of traffic, etc. Mr. Fuhrmann appeared in opposition and expressed the same concern as the other people. Mr. Tighe then asked that the record show that Mrs. Peer and Mr. Lerza also were in opposition to this case, as well as Mr. John McErlean and William Treasurer. Mr. Dolin stated that he realized the neighbors position, but their operation would be far better than possibly the next purchaser who might have an operation far worse than Handyman's. The residents said they had considered that possibility. 572 Both Mr. Wassman and Mr. White asked the applicant if he would con- sider moving the structure further back, minimize blasting and putting in some nice plantings. They felt this would be better all around and would give more parking spaces. Mr. Dolin said this would give him only an addi- tional three spaces . After a brief discussion Mr. Bierman told Mr. Dolin he was still not satisfied with the accuracy of the parking and blasting figures . He asked him if he would accept amendments to his application making it revocable if Handyman left the site and setting up a six month test period. If the Building Inspector were to find the parking inadequate, Handyman would be required to create the seven additional spaces. Mr. Paonessa disapproved of the test period because he said he would have no way of telling whether cars parked in the Handyman lot belonged to the store's customers. Mr. Dolin stated he was unhappy about accepting restrictions without checking with company officials first. But after conferring with Mr. Leary, he told the Board he needed a decision that night, since Handyman's option to buy the plot from Foster and Kleiser, which now owns it, was running out. He said he would accept the restrictions, and Handyman would base its decision to purchase on them. Mr. Dolin also rejected Mr. Bierman's proposal to defer decision for a month while he got accurate parking and blasting figures. After a ten minute recess, a vote was taken which resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Naye Commissioner White Naye Commissioner Wassman Naye Commissioner Mullick Naye • The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Robert J. Dolin, Vice President of Handyman East, Inc. , has sub- mitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for construction of an off-street parking area, having less than the minimum required parking facilities for the proposed use, 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, of said Ordinance, which provides for Off-Street Parking Require- ments for Retail or Service Business ; and WHEREAS, Robert J. Dolin, Vice President of Handyman East, Inc. , has sub- mitted to this Board an application for variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: I. Location of residential zone to rear and existence of ledge rock prevents any alternative site arrangement which would permit increase in number of parking spaces provided on plan. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also viewed the property and 573 has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board denied 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 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 detrimental to the public welfare. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk in accord- ance with Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the third application. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 191 Application of Henry Rothman for modification of Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Residence District Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, so as to allow the construction of a 6' x 11'-5 " addition to the existing dwelling in an R-7.5 Residence District having a non-conforming side yard of 7-feet rather than the required minimum 10- foot side yard on the premises located at 22 Lafayette Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Parcel 298 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Henry Rothman 22 Lafayette Road Larchmont, New York Communications: Mr. & Mrs. J. M. Sonet 17 Lafayette Road Larchmont, New York Petition in favor, signed by five neighbors and dated August 11,1964. In Opposition: None Mr. Rothman, representing himself, appeared and submitted plans for construction of a 6' x 11'-5" addition to the existing dwelling. He stated he was the original owner of the house which was built in 1948 and at that time the side yard requirement was six feet, however after 1959, it was increased to a 10-foot side yard requirement by a change in the Zoning Ordinance . . 574 He further explained that his wife, having suffered from Phlebitis in her leg, has difficulty using the stairs to the upper floor of the house where their bedroom, working and dressing room area is located. The new room, which extends an open porch six feet to the front, will be a den for his wife and will eliminate her having to go up and down the stairs. The den would extend to a point almost even with a present wall. He explained that he was leaving a five inch gap between where the old wall extends and where the new one will be, to decrease the non-conformity now existing. Mr. White asked Mr. Rothman if this would be used as a permanent bedroom and he replied no, just as a room for his wife to use during the day so she wouldn't have to go up and down the stairs. The Board pointed out to Mr. Rothman that the 5-inch gap between where the old wall extends and where the new one will be is unnecessary, but the 6-foot projection would have to remain the same. Mr. Rothman stated this was fine with him and Mr. Bierman asked that the plans be amended showing the elimination of the 5-inch jog on the en- croaching wall, but the 6-foot projection to remain the same. Mr. Bierman read a petition, dated August 11, 1964, and signed by five neighbors, expressing their approval of the proposed addition. He also read a letter, dated August 22, 1964, and signed by Mr. & Mrs. Sonet, who also stated they had no objection to the proposed addition. These letters were received and filed for the record. A vote was taken which resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner White Aye Commissioner Wassman Aye Commissioner Mullick Aye• The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Henry Rothman, has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for the addition to the existing dwelling in a R-7.5 Residence District, having a non-conforming side yard, 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 Section 410 of said Ordinance, which provides for set backs, side yards, plat area, etc. ; and WHEREAS, Henry Rothman has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reason: 1. Mrs. Rothman, having suffered from Phlebitis in her leg, has difficulty using the stairs to the upper floor of the house where the bedroom, working and dressing room area is located. The addition would eliminate this condition. 575 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 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 circumstance and/or conditions are as follows: I. The proposed addition will eliminate the applicant's wife from having to use the stairs during the day to gain access to the bedroom,etc. which is not feasible due to her suffer- ing from Phlebitis. which circumstances and/or conditions are such that the parti- cular application of the Ordinance with respect to Section 410 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 410 be varied and modified so as to allow the con- struction of an addition to the existing dwelling, having a non-conforming side yard of 7-feet, in a R-7 .5 Residence District, on the premises located at 22 Lafayette Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 130, Parcel 298, in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application, and amended, provided that the applicant com- plies 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 the date of said permit. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. 576 ANNOUNCEMENT The Chairman announced "with a sense of real regret, the resignation of Robert B. White who has served this Board creditably and with destinction. Unfortunately he is moving his residence to Florida and therefore will be unable to serve us any longer." Mr. Bierman also said, "I know I speak for all the other membersof this Board, that it was a destinct pleasure to serve with Mr. White and which ever community he decides to serve in, I know fur- ther that that community will be better for it." ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meeting it was ad- journed at 11:00 p.m. 41-X6;'1" / t 1 577