Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965_03_24 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD MARCH 24, 1965, IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK POLICE STATION, 11 EDGEWOOD AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Sydney D. Bierman, Chairman E. Robert Wassman Price H. Topping Henry E. Mullick Richard Eggers Absent: None Also Present: William Paonessa, Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of February 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 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 coverage 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 which is 25%, the maximum floor area of 50%, minimum side yard of 10 feet, minimum rear yard of 25 feet, and minimum off-street parking requirements as provided for in Section 450.4, (paragraph M and Paragraph N) , on the premises located at 1 Vine Street, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126, Parcel 730, on the grounds of pract- ical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. 638 0 The following persons were heard: For The Appellant: Arturo Mancini 1 Vine Street Larchmont, N.Y. Raymond Mancini 2 Crossway Yonkers, N.Y. Robert Garlock, Attorney 475 Fifth Avenue New York, N.Y. In Opposition Anthony Librandi 12 Thompson St. Larchmont, N.Y. Communications: M. P. Medwick, Chairman Park Department Town of Mamaroneck John Stahr, Chairman The Recreation Commission Town of Mamaroneck CEugenia Vincent, President The Garden Club of Larchmont 109 Rockland Avenue Larchmont, N.Y. Vincent Ciardullo, President Myrtle Association 93 Myrtle Blvd. Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. Garlock, Attorney representing the owner, stated that he was appealing to the Board for permission to amend this appli- cation by eliminating light manufacturing in the second-story ad- dition as the proposed addition would be used solely for office purposes. He further stated that prior to the construction of the New England Thruway and the elevated Parking Plaza at the Larchmont Station, all motorists using the eastbound railroad station passed the Vine Street Garage whereas now only those whose passengers are willing to climb up and down stairways do so, while the majority discharge passengers on the Plaza. He also pointed out that the sale of gasoline has dropped from an average of more than 22,000 gallons a month to about 15,000 gallons and the income from auto storage from $900 to $550. He further noted that the building (:: occupies the entire plot so that a second-story would not increase the land coverage and would not change the character of the neighbor- hood, in fact esthetically it might be a benefit. 639 s i Mr. Bierman questioned Mr. Garlock on the current market value and was advised that while he did not know that figure, the present rental value was $1.25 per quare foot. Mr. Bierman then stated that the structure was nonconform- ing in that it occupied nearly the entire lot, whereas in the business district land coverage was limited by regulations to 25% with a maximum of 50% for floor area and inquired whether the applicant was considering any alternate use. In reply, Mr. Garlock stated that conversion of the build- ing to other than garage use had been considered, but the need to provide parking precluded such a move, further stating that the entire interior of the garage would be used for parking except that area designated for a workshop. Mr. Bierman then queried whether it was now intended to use the proposed entire second-story space, some of which had been formerly designated for light manufacturing for office space, and if so, what area would be used for parking if the downstairs space were used solely as a garage and service station. Mr. Paonessa estimated for the Board that only about 20 cars could be parked in the garage on an unattended basis, whereas the proposed 12,000 square foot second-story addition called for parking for 60 cars. Mr. Wassman stated that he had suggested at a previous meeting when the matter was deferred because only three members of the Board were presents that the applicant consider a second floor structure of reduced area for which the parking would be sufficient. Mr. Bierman pointed out that the particular area in this proposed structure was devoted to a series of uses and Mr. Eggers added that as an architect evaluating esthetics he was not impressed with complete coverage of the roof and suggested some meeting of minds. Following some further discussion, Mr. Garlock requested a two month deferment to consider some of the suggestions made by the Board. Mr. Bierman asked if anyone present objected and since no one did, the request was granted. The Chairman then read the letters opposing this application which were ordered received and filed for the record and stated that this case was thus deferred to the meeting of May 26, 1965 with re- publication and renotification at the applicant's expense. The Chairman then requested the secretary to read the next appli- cation. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 209 640 Application of Dunkin Foods, Inc. for modification of Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Regulations for Non-Residential Dis- tricts and Article IV, Section 450.4, "K" and"L", Off-Street Park- ing Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck so as to allow the construction of a retail store and restaurant having a minimum front setback of 55 feet instead of the required minimum of 75 feet when parking is provided in front of the pro- posed structure and a rear yard of 15 feet rather than the required 25 feet 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. The following persons were heard: For the Appellant: Al Christoffers Dunkin Donuts Franchising Corp. 150 Broadway Elizabeth, New Jersey William Berlanti 11 Glen Oaks Drive Rye, New York James McAtee 49 Prospect Avenue Larchmont, N.Y. In Opposition: Otto Scheuble 3 Rock Ridge Larchmont, N.Y. Michael Kiss 18 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. & Mrs. Theodore Purcell 14 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Hayden W. Smith 8 Lafayette Road Larchmont, N.Y. Communications: Theodore Purcell 14 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Helen C. Bragdon 4 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. William J. Rooney Orienta Point Association Otto Scheuble 3 Rock Ridge Road , Larchmont, N.Y. 641 Mr. & Mrs. Donata Proscia 16 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. & Mrs. E. A. Henault 12 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. & Mrs. Ralph Manella 27 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. & Mrs. Julius Anger 23 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. & Mrs. Michael Kiss 18 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Eileen M. Reilly 17 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Elina DeElizalde 8 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. & Mrs. Oscar Hartenau 1 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont, N.Y. Mr. Christoffers, representing Dunkin Foods, which had previous- ly sought a variance on another parcel of land on the Post Road, but found it impractical because of utility easements required is seeking a variance on the placement of the building at this new location. Mr. Christoffers stated that no such problems existed at the tri- angular parcel now proposed for the store and restaurant, but a variance is sought on the placement of the building. No variance would be required if the building were situated at the front property line on the Post Road but it was agreed that this would represent a traffic hazard. Mrs. Purcell spoke in opposition to the application stating that as a resident, she found ingress and egress from Rock Ridge Road to the Post Road difficult now and felt that it would be doubly hazardous if the do- nut business were to have a curb cut on the Rock Ridge Road side of this property. Mr. Bierman stated that aside from the traffic flow the proposed placement of this building to the rear of the property as against plac- ing it on the front line of the property would be an improvement from the standpoint of vision, and he further stated that the lot would be graded and blasted and the land cleared. Mr. Mullick, upon ascertaining that Mrs. Purcell 642 had not seen the plans, invited her to view them. The Chairman then announced a 15 minute recess. Mr. Bierman stressed that since this property abutted a resi- dential area there were several important factors to be considered. Among them was the question of the use of flood lighting, the hours of operation, the use of planting and fencing for screening, etc. , the matter of odor eviction and the proposed entrance and exit driveways on to the subject property. In reply to the above, the Board was assured that the hours of operation were flexible, that there would be two plant- ers in front of the building, one at the vestibule, and low planting on the Rock Ridge Road boundary, and at the edge of the blacktop; and that the matter of odor would be taken care of by a roof exhaust with a verti- cal upblast, and further that every effort would be made to comply with the Boards other requests. Mr. Scheuble addressed the Board in opposition to this application and stated that the proposed building would be directly in line with his home and the odor right in his backyard. He further raised the question of the possibility of a fire hazard as the result of the pro- posed use of the subject property. Mr. Smith, Chairman of the Hommocks Study Committee, requested the Board to consider the possible developments in the Hommocks area including the proposed middle school in evaluating the traffic impact. Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Smith if the Commocks Committee had studied this application from a standpoint of traffic conditions, stating that the owner of this lot had the right to use it within the framework of the Zoning Regulations without application to this Board. He further remarked that any building would create a problem traffic-wise and assured Mr. Smith that in view of this, the Zoning Board would be very glad to give any ideas, recommendations or suggestions that that Com- mittee might have its most serious consideration upon submission of same. Mr. Bierman further stated that it had been noted that the ledge rock at the rear of the Kenny property would not be in line with the proposed rock cut on this site, since it would be approximately 10T further back than the face of the ledge rock on the Kenny property, and asked Mr. Christoffers whether he would be willing to fence and screen at the top of this rock cut so as to have it return to the face of the rock cut on Kenny's property, to which Mr. Christoffers agreed. During further lengthy discussion, certain additional matters re- lating to the entrance criveway and its effect on abutting residential property and traffic congestion, location or relocation of the proposed building itself, etc. , were raised, and the Chairman after again stress- ing the fact that this proposal constituted a permitted use of this pro- perty, requested the Board's pleasure in the matter. 643 Whereon on motion duly made and seconded, by a vote of 3 to 2, the application was deferred to the next meeting with the Chairman suggesting that the applicant endeavor to find a better architectural solution or redesign and relocation which would be more acceptable to the Rock Ridge Road residents. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meeting, it was adjourned at 11:10 p.m. Le Esta E. Davis, Secretary 644