Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965_02_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD FEBRUARY 24, 1965 IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK POLICE STATION, 11 EDGEWOOD AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. CALL TO ORDER Mr. Mullick, acting as Chairman in the absence of Mr. Bierman who was detained on business, called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. PRESENT: E. Robert Wassman Price H. Topping Henry E. Mullick Note: Mr. Sydney D. Bierman arrived at 9:10 p.m. ABSENT: Richard Eggers ALSO PRESENT: William Paonessa, Building Inspector MINUTES: The Minutes of the meeting of January 27, 1965 were approved as submitted on motion duly made and seconded. HEARING: The Chairman declared the hearing open and the secretary presented the affidavit of publication thereof in the official newspaper of the Town of Mamaro- neck, The Daily Times, on February 18, 1965, which was received and filed. Application No. 1 Case 206 Since Richard Sheehan was not present, Mr. Mullick stated that he would be given a chance to present his case later in the evening. The secretary was requested to read the next application. Application No. 2 Case 207 Application of Arturo Mancini for modification of Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Permitted Uses in a "B" Business District and Article IV of Section 410, Schedule of Regulations for Non-Residential Districts, so as to allow the construction of a second story addition to the present garage to be used for business offices and/or light manufacturing having an existing building cover- age of 82%, floor area of 165% in relation to lot area, and a side yard of zero feet and a rear yard of zero feet, rather than the required maximum building coverage allowed is 25%, maximum floor area of 50%, minimum side yard of 10 ft. , minimum rear yard of 25 ft. and minimum off-street parking requirements as pro- vided for in Section 450.4, (Paragraph M and Paragraph N) , on the premises lo- cated at 1 Vine Street, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assessment Maps of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126, Parcel 730, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Arturo Mancini 1 Vine Street Larchmont, N.Y. Raymond Mancini 628 2 Crossway Yonkers, N.Y. In Opposition: Peter Perciasepe 96 Myrtle Blvd. Larchmont, N.Y. Anthony Librandi 12 Thompson St. Larchmont, N.Y. Communications: None Mr. Mullick asked if the applicant was aware of the new zoning law which made his building nonconforming and further inquired whether the applicant was aware that nothing could be done to the building to add to its nonconformity. Mr. Wassman inquired whether the applicant was permitted a second story. Mr. Mullick replied that there was no rule objecting to building a second story provided the applicant maintained the required setbacks and limitations. Mr. Mullick further stated that light industry was a nonpermitted use and asked whether Mr. Man- cini was the owner of the building. Mr. Raymond Mancini stated that his father was the owner and added that he was claiming hardship due to the thruway which had caused his business to decrease at least 50%. Mr. Mullick inquired as to the proposed location of off-street parking, to which Mr. Mancini answered that he would be able to comply with the off-street regulations in the present garage. At this time, Mr. Mullick announced that since only three members of the Board are present this evening, this application would have to have unanimous approval and therefore if the applicant wished to have his case adjourned to the next meeting on March 24, 1965, he could do so. Mr. Mancini requested such adjournment. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the next application. Application No. 3 Case 208 Application of Fred H. Krones for modification of Article IV, Section 410, Sched- ule of Resident District Regulations for an R-10 Residence District, so as to allow the construction of a one family dwelling on a lot having a street frontage of 40.74 feet rather than the required 85 feet at the premises located at the easterly end of Dimitri Place, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assessment Maps as Block 121, Par- cel 579, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Fred H. Krones 42 Mohegan Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mitchell Glick, Attorney 271 North Avenue New Rochelle, N.Y. In Opposition: Robert Betzig 22 Dimitri Place Larchmont, N.Y. 629 Robert McCoy 24 Dante St. Larchmont, N.Y. Kamil Tooni 20 Dante St. Larchmont, N.Y. Elizabeth O'Gorman 21 Byron Lane Larchmont, N.Y. William J. Gorman 22 Dante Street Larchmont, N.Y. Communications: None Mr. Glick, attorney, representing the owner and the prospective purchaser noted that the lot is at the dead end of Dimitri Place and that it is therefore physically impossible to conform to the street frontage since the street itself is only 40 ft. wide. Mr. Glick presented to the Board, the applicant's state- ment of facts dated February 24, 1965, which was read and ordered received and filed for the record. Mr. Glick stated that Mr. Krones was the nominal applicant and that Dr. & Mrs, Emil Maffucci were the prospective buyers who would, if the variance were granted, build a one family dwelling on the subject property. He further stated that Mr. Krones requested a variance on this property which complied in every re- spect except that of street frontage, and therefore was only obligated to show practical difficulty. Mr. Mullick asked about the 40 ft. width of the street. Mr. Paonessa replied that it was the legal width at the time of the subdi- vision. This lot was on the filed map of Byron Estates. Mr. Betzig disapproved on the grounds that this proposed building might de- crease property values. Mr. Wassman asked if the lot was offered for sale to Mr. Betzig. Mr. Betzig replied that he had hoped to purchase part of this lot, but that the previous own- er, Mr. Traendley had refused to sell a part of the lot since he desired to sell the entire parcel. Mr. McCoy stated that his property abuts the south side and that he has re- sided there since 1956. He further stated in-corroboration of Mr. Betzig's state- ment, that Mr. Traendley had refused to divide the parcel. He also pointed out that he was concerned about the congested situation involving the driveways. Mr. Mullick asked whether Mr. Traendley or anyone else had ever applied for a variance to which Mr. McCoy replied "no". Mr. Tooni objected to the variance on the grounds that building on this lot would obstruct his small back yard. 630 Mr. Wassman asked if the opponents had seen the plans for the proposed house and invited them to come forward and examine same. Mrs. O'Gorman stated that she had no objection to the construction of a dwelling but was concerned about blasting and crackage in homes of adjoining property owners. She was also concerned with the problem of this property becoming a dump were it to remain idle. Mr. Mullick assured Mrs. O'Gorman that the blaster would have to be bonded. At this time, Mr. Bierman arrived and Mr. Glick summarized his case for the Chairman's information. Mr. Bierman asked whether there was more space on the Byron Street side of the property and if the applicant would be willing to reverse the house so that the larg- er side yard would be on the Dante St. side of the house. It was pointed out that there was a tree alongside of the proposed driveway which would interfere with a clo- ser side-line on the Byron Street side and the tree would have to be removed. It was further pointed out that due to the topography of the lot which slopes gnerally down toward Dante St. the house had been designed so as to take advantage of this topo- graphical condition in order that a mimimum amount of blasting would be required for the construction of the house. Mr. Mullick announced there would be a 15 minute recess. After this recess and following further discussion in which Mr. Bierman pointed out that unless a solution were found, the 22,000 sq. ft. would remain sterile, Mr. Bierman asked that instead of moving the tree, if the applicant would be willing to relocate the powder room and mud room at the rear of the proposed dwelling, so as to provide side yards of 16 and 22 feet. The applicant agreed and the plan was thus amended. The following resolution was duly adopted: Commissioner Bierman - Aye Commissioner Wassman - Aye Commissioner Mullick - Aye Commissioner Topping - Naye WHEREAS, Fred H. Krones has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for the construction of a one family dwelling on a lot having a street line frontage of 40.74 ft. instead of the required 85 feet, on the premises at the easterly end of Dimitri Place - 365 ft. east from Dante St. , together with plans; and WHEREAS, The Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the ground that plans submitted have failed to comply with Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Resi- dence District Regulations for an R-10 district, which requires a minimum street line frontage of 85 ft. (proposed building lot will have a street frontage of 40.74 feet) ; and WHEREAS, Fred H. Krones has submitted to this Board an application for variance on the grounds of practicul difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reason. 1. The location of the proposed building 11ot at the dead end of a 40 ft. wide street makes it impossible to obtain greater street line frontage. It would impose unnecessary hardship upon the 631 applicant and render the proposed building lot sterile if strict compliance of the Zoning Ordinance was enforced. 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 the proposed building lot is located at the dead end of Dimitri Place, a 40 foot wide public street, having a lot frontage of 40.74 feet and there is no other possible means of obtaining a greater street line frontage because of its location. That the lot complies in all other respects with the Zoning requirements and to deprive the owner of reasonable use of the land would render the pro- posed building lot sterile if strict compliance of the Zoning Ordi- nance was enforced. (b) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land and/or building for which a variance is sought which cir- cumstances and/or conditions are peculiar to such land and/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 the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (c) That the granting of this variance will be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be in- jurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted to the applicants and that Article IV, Section 410 be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of a 1 family house on a lot having a street line frontage of 40.74 ft. in an R-10 Residence District, at the premises located at the dead end of Dimitri Place and known on the Tax Assessment Maps of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121, Par- cel 579 in strict conformance with plans filed with this application and amended provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordi- nance and building code of the Town of Mamaroneck and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed building lot remain as a single parcel as shown on the plot plan and shall not be subdivided. 2. That the dwelling have side yards of 16 and 22 feet as shown on the amended plan. FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Board where a variance is granted, the applicants shall obtain a building permit within three months of the filing of this resolution with the Town Clerk. A build- ing permit shall be void if construction is not started within 6 months and com- pleted with 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. Old Business Case #205 632 A carry over application of Erich Ulbrich of 242 Palmer Avenue who enclosed his carport without obtaining a building permit and in violation ofvariance originally granted for the house situated on a substandard plot. Mr. Ulbrich presented to the Chairman a list of 15 signatures from Elkan Park property owners who were in favor of the application, which was read and ordered received and filed for the record. The Chairman also read a communication from the Elkan Park Association dat- ed February 8, 1965, in which it was stated there was no objection to the modi- fication. The Chairman again mentioned that ignorance of the law is no excuse and that if the applicant wished to make any further changes„it was necessary to first check with the Building Inspector. Following some further discussion, a vote was taken which resulted as follows and the following resolution was therefor declared duly adopted by unanimous vote: Commissioner Bierman - Aye Commissioner Mullick - Aye Commissioner Topping - Aye Commissioner Wassman - Aye WHEREAS, Erich W. Ulbrich has submitted an application for modification of the Zon- ing Board Resolution dated February 26, 1964, so as to allow the alteration of a carport to be maintained as a residential garage and laundry room rather than the requirement that it comply with the Variance granted by the Zoning Board Resolution dated February 26, 1964 for a one family dwelling to be in strict accord with approved plans and conditions of the resolution, on the premises located at 242 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assessment Maps of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407, Parcel 373, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the ground that it does not comply with the variance granted by the Zoning Board Resolution of Feb- ruary 26, 1964 for a one family dwelling to be in strict accord with the plan filed and approved and conditions of the relolution; and WHEREAS, Erich W. Ulbrich has submitted an application for variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. To prevent water pipes from freeqing, to permit enclosed laundry room. 2. Upstairs bedrooms could not be kept warm enough due to the great heat loss through heating ducts which run through garage to the second floor. 3. To have extra storage room. 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 modification of thevvariance is sought, which circumstances and/or conditions are peculiar to such land and/or building and do not apply generally to the land/ or buildings in the district, and which circumstances and conditions 633 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: None (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 alteration of existing carport to enclosed garage and laundry room on the premises located at 242 Palmer Avenue, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assessment Maps of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407, Parcel 373, in strict conformance with the. . plans filed with this application, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaro- neck and subject to the following conditions: None FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. The Secretary was asked to read the application of Richard F. Sheehan who had not been present at the beginning of the meeting. Application #1 Case 206 Application of Richard F. Sheehan for modification of Article IV, Section 410 Schedule of Regulations for Non-Residence Districts so as to allow the storage and display of 3 ,yachts outdoors rather than the requirement that all storage be en- tirely within a building on the premises located at 30 Boston Post Road, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assessment Maps of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 409, Parcel 131, on the gorunds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Richard F. Sheehan 195 Hickory Grove Dr. E. ' Larchmont, N.Y. John Sack 44 Mayhew Avenue Larchmont, N.Y. In Opposition: Irving Taub 10 Copley Road Larchmont, N.Y. Communications: Irving Taub 10 Copley Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. Sheehan presented to the Board a proposal of the contemplated display of yachts, which was herewith ordered received and filed for the record. 634 Referring to the proposal, Mr. Bierman questioned the use of the Term "Motor Behicle" when applied to a yacht. Mr. Sheehan first took the tack that a motor yacht is a "motor vehicle" and as such is permitted to be stored outdoors. He cited "Blacks Law Dictionary" in which the definition of the word vehicle includes any sort of conveyance in the transportation of passengers and merchandise either by land, water, or through the air. Mr. Bierman disagreed and challanged anyone to show him where in N.Y. State a "motor vehicle" applies to a boat, and insisted that there is a difference be- tween "motor vehicle" and a plain vehicle. Mr. Sheehan also stated that a boat display in Larchmont is appropriate and the display of new impressive looking yachts on the Post Road would be a much more pleasing sight than many of the sights on properties along that road at the present time. Mr. Bierman contended that the area proposed for display is not a separate lot but a part of a larger parcel which is nonconforming and contains the Alden House Apartments. He said that in effect, the applicant is asking to cut out a piece of a nonconforming lot for another nonconforming use. It was also pointed out that the present use requires more off-street parking than is available at the premises, and that an attempt should be made to use this present paved area in conjunction with off-street requirements. Mr. Taub stated that his residence abuts the lot and that the variance would depreciate his property. Mr. Mullick read Mr. Taub's letter, dated Debember 22, 1964, which was received and filed for the record. Following some further discussion, a vote was taken resulting as follows and the following resolution was therefor declared duly adopted: Commissioner Bierman - Naye Commissioner Topping - Naye Commissioner Mullick - Naye Commissioner Wassman - Naye WHEREAS, Richard F. Sheehan has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for the display and storage of three fiberglass yachts on the pre- mises located on the west side of the Boston Post Road, 180 feet north from Alden Rd. together with plans; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the ground that plans submitted have failed to comply with Article IV, Section 410; Schedule of Regu- lations for Non-Residential Districts; "B" Business Districts, which provides that all storage be entirely within a building. Proposed site plan shows open-air storage of three yachts; and WHEREAS, Richard F. Sheehan has submitted to this Board an application for variance on the ground of practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship for the following reason: 1. This property is ideally suited for our needs since it is opposite our offices at 22 Boston Post Road. It is impossible to build on this piece since the plot already has a building on it that exceeds 635 the maximum allowed. 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 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 en- title 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 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. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before this meeting, it was adjourned at 11:20 p.m. • Le Esta E. Davis, Secretary • 636