Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963_08_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD AUGUST 28, 1963 , 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 Richard Eggers Robert White E. Robert Wassman Henry E. Mullick ALSO PRESENT: Thomas McEvoy, Assessor MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of July 24, 1963 were approved on motion duly made and seconded. HEARING The Chairman delcared 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 August 21, 1963. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the first application. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 164 Application of Marie C. and Maurice H. Graux for modification of Article IV, Section 421.4 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck so as to allow the erection of a 5-foot high fence along the northerly, southerly and easterly property lines rather than the required 4-foot on the premises lo- cated at 434 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Parcel 167 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. The Chairman asked if any person present wished to address the Board in favor of or in opposition to this application and the following persons were heard: FOR APPELANT: Marie C. Graux 117 E. 237th Street Bronx 70, New York George Wino 431Weaver Street Larchmont, New York Mrs. Signorelli 430 Weaver Street Larchmont, New York COMMUNICATION: Petition of endorsements, signed by adjoining property owners, dated August 26, 1963 . IN OPPOSITION: None • COMMUNICATION: None 470 Mrs. Graux appeared and advised the Board that she and her husband entered into a contract with King Lifetime Fences, Inc. , located at 84 Grassy Sprain Road, Yonkers, New York, with the belief that the fence was to be constructed within local zoning regulations. Since she and her husband do not live on the premises involved they were unaware of any violation until notified by the Building Inspector. Mr. Bierman asked who lived on the premises. Mrs. Graux replied her daughter. Mrs. Graux then gave the following reasons for requestion the variance: 1. The grade of land is several feet below street level and the fence is constructed on sunken area. 2. The westerly portion of the fence, which runs along Weaver Street is 4-feet. This portion of the fence is completely boxed in by a 6-foot privet edge. 3. The north, south and easterly portions are likewise covered by edges, shrubbery and trees, so as to make a live fence on a con- siderable portion of the property. 4. One of the reasons why the fence was constructed was to confine a large pedigree English setter. 5. An added reason was to prevent any other accidents to neighboring children and to their own nieces and nephews from falling into the brook which borders the eastern end of the property. 6. To remove the fence now and reduce it to the 4-foot acceptable height would cause she and her husband, now living on a small Civil Service pension, to sustain considerable expense and hard- ships which they could ill afford. Mrs. Graux presented a petition of endorsements, signed by adjoining neigh- bors, to the Chairman. Mr. Bierman read the petition. This was received and filed for the record. Mr. Bierman then requested the application be amended to include the following two additional points as to why the variance should be granted: 1. To prevent accidents to neighboring childred and to their own nieces and newphews from falling into the brook which borders the eastern end of their property. 2. To protect childred from crossing the property and falling into a brook which borders the rear and which is on a sunken area, below street level, and is largely covered by hedges and trees. Mr. White asked if any fence was on property when originally purchased. Mrs. Graux replied no. Mr. White and Mr. Eggers asked why a picket fence and not a wire fence was erected. 471 Mrs. Graux replied for appearance and mainly the wire fence would have been more expensive. Mr. Bierman asked if King Fence was notified of violation, etc. Mrs. Graux said yes however they would not rectify the problem and in fact had them sign a second contract for removal and replacement of fence presently existing at an additional cost in the event their appeal was denied. The original cost of the fence was $1200.00. This second contract was received and filed for the record. Mr. Bierman asked if Mr. & Mrs. Graux were aware of law prohibiting 5-foot fences, would they have ordered 4-foot or 5-foot. Mrs. Graux replied 4-foot definitely. Mr. George Wino, a neighbor, appeared and stated he had no objection and in fact felt the dog might clear the 4-foot fence whereas the 5-foot fence he would not. Mrs. Signorelli, a neighbor, appeared and stated fence was nice in appearance and since she has 3 youngsters, she agreed fence is protective at 5-foot height. Following a five minute recess, Mr. Bierman stated he would like to vote on the application. A vote being taken resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner Eggers Aye Commissioner White Aye Commissioner Mullick Aye Commissioner Wassman Aye The following resolution was thereupon adopted: WHEREAS, Marie C. & Maurice G. Graux have submitted an application for a build- ing permit to the Building Inspector for the erection of a 5-foot high fence along the northerly, southerly and easterly property lines of premises located at 434 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaro- neck as Block 221, Parcel 167; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue 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, Marie C. & Maurice Graux have appealed to this Board for modification of the Building Inspector's decision pursuant to Article IV, Section 421.4 of the Zoning Ordiance so as to allow the erection of said fence, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that permission is granted to Marie C. & Maurice G. Graux to erect a 5-foot high wooden fence along the northerly, southerly and easterly property lines of premises located at 434 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 221, Parcel 167. 472 FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk in accord- ance with Section 267 of the Town Law. The secretary then read the second application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 165 Application of Keenan Carpet Co. , Inc. for modification of Article IV, Sec- tion 410, Schedule of Regulations for Non-residential Districts, of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, so as to permit a 12-foot by 100-foot addition to the existing structure in a "B"-business district, having a setback of zero feet from Hommocks Road and a rear yard of 16-feet increas- ing land coverage 11. 1 per cent to 43 .9 per cent rather than the required 5-foot setback, 25-foot rear yard and the maximum land coverage of 25 per cent on the premises located at 1329 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412, Parcel 304 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. The Chairman asked if any person present wished to address the Board in favor of this application and the following persons were heard: FOR APPELANT: Herbert S. Keller, Esquire 1501 Broadway New York 36, New York Irving Keenan 1329 Boston Post Road Larchmont, New York Mrs. Novak 1331 Boston Post Road Larchmont, New York COMMUNICATION: None Mr. Keller, representing Keenan Carpet Co. , appeared and presented a brief to all members of the Board which was received and filed for the record. Mr. Keller proceeded to explain why his client wished to build an addition to the rear of the existing building. The topography of the site is such that a high cliff at the rear of the property completely shields the building from the residential area to the south. He sub- mitted several photographs showing the cliff and the building which were re- ceived and filed for the record. He said the side yard requirement is no problem and the addition could be placed 5-feet from Hommocks Road but this would be a useless act since the existing building runs 65-feet along the property line on this road. The reduc- tion of the rear yard would not affect others because of the cliff at the rear. The addition for badly needed storage of stock would not increase the number of employees nor the number of customers. When the showroom was built in 1953 , he noted, it was located on the lot with a view to possible expansion, but the 1959 zoning ordinance requires a variance to accomplish this . 473 An important consideration to the community, Mr. Keller said, would be the re- location of the present loading platform from the Hommocks Road side to the parking lot side , thus eliminating the occasional blocking of Hommocks Road by trucks making deliveries. Mr. Keller also explained that efforts to buy additional property, namely the adjacent vacant doughnut stand property, had been made but the owner, realizing the situation, had demanded a price far exceeding its true value . Mr. Bierman asked that the original application include, as a further reason on item 9, that the addition was also required for badly needed storage space . Mr. Bierman asked why the platform could not be relocated in the present building. Mr. Keenan explained that on the parking lot side are interior offices which would be expensive to relocate . Mr. Bierman questioned the traffic problem which presently exists and if any accidents have ever occurred. Mr. Keller replied no. Mr. Bierman also asked if any police action was ever involved in regard to the traffic problem. Mr. Kellner replied yes, he believed several neighbors had complained but no action was ever taken Mr. Bierman requested Mr. Kellner to secure record of complaints from the Police Blotter and present at the next meeting if the case was held over. Mr. Bierman questioned the adequacy of the parking area. Mr. Keller stated that under the ordinance, which requires one car space for every 100 square feet in the building, the area is inadequate, but practically speaking it is entirely sufficient. Mr. Bierman suggested that certain conditions might be imposed as improvement of the parking lot, elimination of loading from Hohmacks Road side, entire elimination of parking in front, which causes traffic hazards, and substituting a landscaped area for the present blacktop, elimination of sign which is non- conforming under the new sign ordinance, and erecting a separation fence at the top of the cliff. Mr. Keenan assured the Board that these conditions would be acceptable to him and that he was willing to do whatever might be required to improve the property if he could get his variance . Mrs. Novak appeared and voiced support for the application. She stated she and her husband own a furniture showroom next to Keenan Carpet Co. and also own resi- dential property directly in the rear of the Keenan building and had no objec- tion to addition. 474 The Chairman asked if any person present wished to address the Board in oppo- sition of this application and the following persons were heard: IN OPPOSITION: 0. H. Hartenau 1 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, New York William McCarty 7 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, New York Mrs. K. S. Scheuble 9 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, New York COMMUNICATIONS: Petition of opposition, signed by ten neighbors, dated August 28, 1963 . Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Hartenau, dated August 28, 1963, 1 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, New York Letter from Mr. & Mrs. C. R. Bragdon, dated August 26, 1963 4 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, New York Mr. Bierman read two letters and a petition expressing opposition to variance requested. These were received and filed for the record. Mr. Hartenau appeared and voiced fear of necessary blasting which might be re- quired in making proposed addition. Mr. Keller assured the Board that no blasting would be required. Mr. Bierman asked if this were made a condition of the variance, as applied for, would it be acceptable. Mr. Keller answered it would be acceptable. Mr. William F. McCarty appeared and complained of the cliff hazard to the children who play on Rock Ridge Road. Mr. Keller pointed out that the proposed addition, built against the lower por- tion of the cliff, would actually reduce the drop. Mr. McCarty also expressed fear that if variance granted, it might set a prece- dent that would allow variances to be granted, in like manner, to neighboring areas, etc. Mr. Bierman replied no precedent is ever carried over for similar cases. Mrs. Scheuble appeared and complained that there would not be enough parking area for the customers' cars, that a bad traffic condition already exists and that the taxpayers should be protected by the zoning laws. Mr. Bierman stated that parking and traffic conditions would be eliminated as applicant had already agreed to eliminate condition of parking in front of the building and to clean up lot, etc. Also that the Board sits to consider the variance in a specific case and would not create an unfair situation to adjoining property owners, etc. Mr. Bierman, then stated that by consesus of the Board, action would be deferred 475 until the next regular meeting, September 25, 1963, at which time the case would be considered without any publication. Also in the interim, additional data concerning the suggested additional improvements, namely sketches of parking area in front that would be landscaped in place of blacktop and the elimination of loading from Hommocks Road. Also information received from the Police Blotter. All of this should be submitted to the secretary in ad- vance of the next regular meeting. The secretary then read the third application. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 166 Application of Emilia Ferrari for modification of Article IV, Section 440.3 and Article IV, Section 410, of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaro- neck, so as to permit a 20-foot by 8-foot addition to the existing non-con- forming use in an R-6 Residence District having a rear yard of 7-feet rather than the required 25-foot rear yard on the premises located at 4 Baldwin Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126, Parcel 427 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. The Chairman asked if any person present wished to address the Board in favor of or in opposition to this application and the following persons were heard: FOR APPELANT: Ralph Cirulli, Agent 19 Clark Place Port Chester, New York Mrs. Emilia Ferrari 4 Baldwin Avenue Larchmont, New York COMMUNICATIONS: None IN OPPOSITION: None COMMUNICATIONS: None Mr. Cirulli, agent for the applicant, appeared and stated the reason for the proposed extension is that it would permit the relocation of the building en- trance, now a "doghouse" type at the side, to the front. This also would make it possible to correct a condition of water accumulating in the vestibule which occurs when it storms. Mr. Bierman advised Mr. Cirulli that the Board would like to have a more de- tailed set of plans submitted. Mr. Cirulli replied that original plans made up very hurriedly and if more de- tailed ones required, he would do so. Mr. Bierman stated the Board had examined the site and could not see why an 8' x 20' extension is required, with closets, etc. unless the purpose is to create extra rooms. Mr. Cirulli replied no this was not the intention of the applicant. Mr. Bierman asked Mrs. Ferrari how long she had owned the property. Mrs. Ferrari stated 4 years. 476 Mr. Bierman then stated that in viewing the area, the Board noted the house is occupied by two families and there is an apartment on the ground floor of the garage as well as on the second floor. In reviewing previous applications for variance on this property, Mr. Bierman noted that in 1950 a request to permit conversion of an unused garage to a one-family apartment on the second floor and a garage and laundry room on the ground floor was denied and in 1951 a similar application was granted. Mrs. Ferrari said the house is occupied by two families, and there is an apartment on the ground floor of the garage in which she resided before she purchased the property. Mr. Bierman questioned Mr. McEvoy if this area was not zoned for one family houses and was this not in violation, etc. Mr. McEvoy replied yes - zoned for one family. Mr. Bierman then stated that from what was now before the Board, it appeared that present occupancy is in violation of the certificate of occupancy and suggested Mrs. Ferrari and her agent investigate the situation and see the Building Inspector, etc. If they found they still wanted to press the appli- cation for variance, return on September 25, 1963, the next regular meeting, at which time action would be taken on the application. If not,they were to advise the secretary of their withdrawal of application. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meeting it was ad- journed at 10:45 p.m. enevieve F. Soriano, Secretary 477