Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964_03_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD MARCH 25, 1964, IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN OF MAMARO- NECK POLICE STATION, 11 EDGEWOOD AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:05 p.m. . PRESENT: Sydney D. Bierman, Chairman Robert B. White E. Robert Wassman Henry E. Mullick Richard Eggers ALSO PRESENT: William Paonessa, Building Inspector MINUTES The minutes of the meeting held February 26, 1964 were approved on mo- tion duly made and seconded. HEARING- The Chairman declared 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 March 18, 1964. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the first application. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 177 Application of John Fraioli for modification of Article IV, Section 455.2 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, Off-Street Parking, so as to allow the construction of an off-street parking area at the property line rather than the required 25-feet from property line, on the premises lo- cated at 91 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114, Parcel 108, on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Anthony Pucillo, Architect 11 Mill Road New Rochelle, New York In Opposition: Lawrence Schneider 87 Valley Road Larchmont, New York George. Luckie 135 N. Chatsworth Avenue Larchmont, New York Charles Boulton 88 Valley Road Larchmont, New York 523 Mr. Pucillo, representing John Fraioli, appeared and submitted a new plan for a proposed off-street parking area. He said the time limit for completing construction, as provided in the variance granted December 1, 1963 , had proved insufficient because of complications which had developed partly as a result of inaccurate drawings . The present plan was basically the same as the one approved in December expect that the parking space was now 5-feet in from the property line, with a driveway grade 33% slope and calls for retaining walls and subsequently an application might be made for roofing over these walls. Mr. Bierman asked when the work would be finished as the applicant was now in violation and subject to fines. Mr. Pucillo stated six weeks after the date the permit would be issued. At this point, Mr. Schneider expressed concern over the safety and esthetic factors of the proposed parking area. He asked if precautions were taken into consideration on the present plan. Mr. Bierman stated some of these were detailed on the plan however where the preceding plan showed some shrubbery along a 9-foot flat concrete surface wall, there were noneshown now and was concerned with what would happen with the ledge, which was the threshold of a 9-foot drop to the blacktopped driveway, as well. Mr. Pucillo stated a fence would be erected and therefore prohibit anyone from walking on to the property and would also be shrubbed if the Board felt it was necessary. Mr. Schneider asked what provisions should be made that would take care of the safety and esthetic problems and Mr. Eggers suggested that possibly a 4-foot wire fence (meshed type) be built along the side of the drop and then shrubbed. George Luckie and Charles Boulton, also appearing in opposition, ex- pressed the same concern as Mr. Schneider. In addition they stated they would like to see the 9-foot wall covered with stucco or something that would give it a better appearance. After a brief discussion among the Board members, Mr. Bierman stated that it was the analysis of the Board that the present plan as compared with the one presented in December, seemed to indicate that there was a material change in the design of the structure of the walls beyond that necessary to retain the earth provided for parking area and questioned Mr. Pucillo if this was the only design he wished the Board to act on. Mr. Pucillo stated the applicant would do whatever the Board wished him to do. Mr. Bierman then suggested Mr. Pucillo redraw his plans to show 4-foot fencing at the top of the wall, where the wall was 5-feet or greater above driveway or steps and for 4-foot shrubbery along side of the wall which would prevent the ledge atop the 9-foot wall, at the end of the parking area, from being used as a walk. After a conference with Mr. Fraioli, Mr. Pucillo submitted to the Board a revised drawing showing all the changes, etc. that the Board had suggested. The Board members, as well as Messrs. Schneider, Luckie and Boulton, reviewed the revised drawing. Since all concerned were satisfied with the changes, etc. Mr. Bierman stated a vote would be taken and if the variance was 524 granted there would be conditions that the off-street parking area was to be constructed only in accordance with the plans of Anthony M. Pucillo, dated and filed March 11, 1964, and revised March 25, 1964, the usage of the facilities to be limited to one passenger car, the required work to be commenced promptly and be completed no later than May 15, 1964 and that the variance would not become effective, and there would be no usage of the area, until final completion of the work and until a written certificate of comple- tion had been filed with this record by the Building Inspector. A vote was taken which resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner White Aye Commissioner Mullick Aye Commissioner Eggers Aye Commissioner Wassman Aye The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, John Fraioli has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector so as to allow the construction of an off-street park- ing area at the existing 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 Section 455.2 of said Ordinance, which provides for layout and location of off-street parking facilities, etc. ; and WHEREAS, John Fraioli has submitted to this Board an application for a var- iance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. Impossible to drive up steep driveway into garage without damage to the car. Also very dangerous to leave car parked on same steep driveway. 2. Forced to leave car parked on street in spite of police warning. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also has 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. 525 (b) That the aforesaid circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. The driveway to existing garage is too steep to permit applicant 's stationwagon to enter garage . 2. The driveway is too steep to permit a parked car to stand • there safely. 3 . Parking car on street at night is illegal. 4. To change the grade or location of the garage is very expensive. 5. To lower the floor of the existing garage would endanger the footings. which said circumstances and/or conditions are such that the par- ticular application of the Ordinance with respect to Section 455.2 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 455.2 be varied and modified so as to allow the construc- tion of an off-street parking area, having a depth of 28-feet and a width of 12'S" , on the premises located at 91 Valley Road and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 114, Parcel 108, in strict con- formance with the plans filed with application, and amended, provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck and subject to the following condi- tions: 1 . The off-street parking area is to be constructed only in accord- ance with the plans of Anthony M. Pucillo, dated and filed March 11, 1964, as revised March 25, 1964. (la) The elevation of the side walls to conform to existing ground contour. 2. The usage of the facilities is to be limited to one passenger car. 3 . The required work must be commenced promptly and be completed no later than May 15, 1964. 4. The variance shall not become effective and there shall be no usage of the area, until final completion of the work, and un- til a written certificate of final completion of all the work as shown on the plan has been filed with this record by the Building Inspector. FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Board where a variance is granted, the applicant shall obtain a build- ing permit and said permit to become void if work not completed by May 15, 1964, as herein above provided. 526 FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision to be filed with the Town Clerk as pro- vided in Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the second application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 178 Application of Herbert G. & Martha W. Mitchell for modification of Article IV, Section 455.2, of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, Off-Street Parking, so as to allow the construction of an off-street parking area to be located less than the required 25-feet from the property line and less than the required 5-feet from the westerly side line on the premises located at 92 Hickory Grove Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Parcel 647, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Herbert G. Mitchell 92 Hickory Grove Drive Larchmont, New York In Opposition: Herbert Baum 88 Hickory Grove Drive Larchmont, New York W. C. Johnson 91 Hickory Grove Drive Larchmont, New York Mr. Mitchell, representing himself, appeared and submitted a plan for the proposed off-street parking area. He stated that in December 1963 the Board had suggested he withdraw his application for parking on the easterly side of his property and attempt to relocate the parking area on the westerly side in order to get the automobile further back from the property line. He had done as requested, even though this created a considerable increase in cost due to rock at that location. He further stated that in putting the driveway on the westerly side it would present a hazard in so far as the property next door (easterly side) has a high retaining wall which would be directly along side of Mr. Mitchell's driveway, with the re- sult that neither he or his neighbor would be ablve to see when backing out of their driveways. Mr. Baum appeared and opposed the placing of the off-street parking area on the westerly side as there was a 300 year old oak tree which would probably die as most of the roots were under the Mitchell property and a great deal of rock would have to be taken out. In removing this rock, many of the roots would be killed, etc. He had no objection to the off-street parking area being placed on the easterly side. Mr. Johnson also appeared, in opposition and concurred with Mr. Baum's remarks. At this point Mr. Bierman asked the applicant if it was his intent to have the parking area on the easterly or westerly side of his property. Mr. Mitchell stated he wanted it on the easterly side as it would cost him approximately $160.00 as against $500.00 due to the rock below and on top of the ground on the westerly side. However if the Board insisted, he would put it on the westerly side. 527 Mr. Bierman then stated that the current application be amended to show off-street parking area on the easterly side, etc. as shown on application 174, which was submitted and withdrawn at the December 19, 1963 meeting, and that the drawing show a dimension of 2-feet to be held from the easterly property line, black-top not to extend further than 4-feet from the front of the house and the dimensions of the parking area as being approximately 25' x 10' . A vote being taken resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner Eggers Aye Commissioner White Aye Commissioner Wassman Aye Commissioner Mullick Aye The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Herbert G. and Martha W. Mitchell have submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector so as to allow the construc- tion of an off-street parking area at the existing 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 Section 455.2 of said Ordinance, which provides for layout and location of off-street parking facilities, etc. ; and WHEREAS, Herbert G. and Martha W. Mitchell has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. No garage on premises. 2. House as constructed does not allow enough room on either side for full driveway. 3 . Garage previously used on neighbor's property no longer available due to sale of property. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also has 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 a and/or building and do not apply generally to the land and/or buildings in the district, and which circumstances and condi- tions have not resulted from any acts of the applicant subse- quent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. 528 I (b) That the aforesaid circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. No garage on premises. 2 . House as constructed does not allow enough room on either side for full driveway. 3 . Garage previously used on neighbor's property no longer available due to sale of property. which said circumstances and/or conditions are such that the par- ticular application of the Ordinance with respect to Section 455.2 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 455.2 be varied and modified so as to allow the construc- tion of an off-street parking area, approximately 25-feet x 10-feet, on the easterly side of the premises located at 92 Hickory Grove Drive and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 217, Parcel 647 , in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application, and amended, provided that the applicant complies 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 said permit. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the third application. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 179 Application of Charles Revson for modification of Article IV, Section 424. 1, of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, Dwellings in House Trailers, so as to allow temporary living quarters to be maintained in a house trailer parked in a R-30 Residential District, on the premises located at Premium Point Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 509, Parcel 86, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. 529 For Appellant: Elliot Saltzman, Architect 4 East 54th Street New York 22, New York Communications: Alfred E. Perlman Bon Repos, Premium Point New Rochelle, New York William Black Bon Repos, Premium Point New Rochelle, New York John I. Dugan Premium Point Company P. 0, Box 406 Larchmont, New York In Opposition: None Communications: None Mr. Saltzman, representing Charles Revson, appeared and submitted a site plan of the Revson property and a brochure and form drawing of the proposed trailer. Mr. Saltzman explained that the use of a 17 ' x 55' trailer was desired to provide additional bedrooms while the main house is undergoing alterations ,as Mr. Revson was recently remarried and the number of children has suddenly in- creased from three to six as Mr. Revson married a divorcee and each have three children. The main house, while quite large, contains only three bed- rooms, not counting servants quarters. Mr. & Mrs. Revson wish to have the trailer put on thepproperty, as soon as possible, so the children may live together and get to know one another, etc. Mr. Bierman noted that Mr. Black had offered Mr. Revson the use of a guest cottage on the Black property and wondered why this might not be pre- ferable= to the trailer, but Mr. Saltzman pointed out that the guest cottage was being offered except on weekends. The cottage is occupied by Mr. Black's brother-in-law on weekends although Mr. Black did suggest some of the Revson children could move in with his own children. Mr. Saltzman presented a letter from Alfred E. Perlman, approving Mr. Revson's plans, to the Chairman who read same. In addition Mr. Bierman read two letters, also in favor, which had been received by the Board from the Premium Point Co. and William Black. These were received and filed for the record. The Board questioned sanitation facilities of the trailer and Mr. Saltz- man stated these would be connected with the sewer line to the house, etc. The Board also questioned whether the alterations to the main house would begin at once, and Mr. Saltzman assured the Board that the family is desirous of proceedings as soon as possible, that borings had already been made and preliminary plans are being drawn for what is anticipated to be a $200,000.00 to $250,000.00 alteration and addition. 530 Mr. Bierman pointed out that the application did not show the extent of the time required for alterations and asked Mr. Saltzman what the outside date would be for applying for a building permit. Mr. Saltzman stated he would consider a March 31, 1965 deadline for alterations to be completed and October 31, 1964 as the outside date in applying for a building permit . These dates he felt would give him enough time. After some further discussion, Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Saltzman if he would be willing to accept the following conditions: 1. That the filing, by the applicant, of satisfactory building plans for the proposed renovation of the house and a building permit be issued by October 31, 1964. 2. The variance would expire March 31, 1965 and the trailer would have to be moved from the property or be in violation of the variance. 3 . The variance would exist as long as there was not conveyance or lease of the house and would be based on the intent to alter the house. 4. This variance shall not become effective unless the above three conditions are met by the applicant. Mr. Saltzman was agreeable to all the conditions. A vote being taker. resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Aye Cohunissioner Mullick Aye Commissioner White Aye Commissioner Wassman Aye Commissioner Eggers Aye The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Charles Revson has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector so as to allow temporary living quarters to be maintained in a house trailer at the existing 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 Section 424. 1 of said Ordinance, which provides for dwellings in house trailers and accessory buildings, etc. ; and WHEREAS, Charles Revson has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1 . To allow for temporary expansion of living areas of house to accomodate increased family size, and to provide temporary living areas while the main building is undergoing expansion and alteration. The expansion is required as the owner has recently remarried, and the family has doubled in size to six children of various ages required additional bedroom space immediately. 531 WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also has 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 circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. Temporary expansion is required to accomodate increased family size and to provide temporary living areas while the main building is undergoing expansion and alteration and is required as family has doubled in size, due to applicant recently remarrying, to six children of various ages requiring additional bedroom space immediately. which said circumstances and or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Sec- tion 424. 1 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 424. 1 be varied and modified so as to allow temporary living quarters to be maintained in a house trailer, 17-feet by 55-feet, on the premises located at Premium Point Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 509, Parcel 86, in strict conformance with the plans filed with application, and amended, provided that the appli- cant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck and subject to the following conditions: 1. That the filing, by the applicant, of satisfactory building plans for the proposed renovation of the house and a building permit be issued by October 31, 1964. 2. The variance wills expire March 31, 1965 and the trailer will have to be moved from the property or be in violation of the variance. 3 . The variance will exist as long as there is not conveyance or lease of the house and will be based on the intent to alter the house. 532 4. This variance shall not become effective unless the above three conditions are met by the applicant. 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 by October 31, 1964 and said permit to become void if work not completed by March 31, 1965, as herein provided. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision to be filed with the Town Clerk as pro- vided in Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the fourth application. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 180 Application of S. N. Petchers, President of Spartan Associates, for modification of Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Regulations for Non- Residential Districts and Article IV, Section 450.4, Off-Street Parking Requirements, of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, so as to allow the construction of a building to be used for retail stores in a "B" Business District, having a building coverage of more than the allowable maximum requirement and off-street parking facilities for less than the required minimums on the premises located at 36 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 411, Parcel 196, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Thomas Fanelli, Attorney 271 North Avenue New Rochelle, New York Robert Gotllieb, Architect 1924 Washington Avenue New York 57, New York S. N. Petchers, President Spartan Associates, Inc. 33 Riverside Drive New York, New York In Opposition: Mr. & Mrs. Irving Taub 10 Copley Road Larchmont, New York Mr. Fanelli, representing S. N. Petchers, President of Spartan Associates, appeared and presented plans for construction of a building for retail stores and provisions for a parking lot. Mr. Fanelli stated that the application was actually for two variances, one for off-street parking and the other a question of lot coverage. The zone permits 257 lot coverage which would amount to approximately 16,000 sq. ft. . It is proposed to have a lot coverage of 18,080 ft. which is 3 .7% over the maximum. However, it was pointed out that only 13,500 sq. ft. will be actually sales area and the balance of the lot coverage will be for stock storage area. In connection with off-street parking, he submitted that Section 450.4, Sub- division L, provides for one parking space for each 100 sq. ft. of floor space. On the face of this, it would indicate the necessity for 180 parking spaces, whereas this provision of the zoning ordinance would be more intelligently read by requiring one space for each 100 sq. ft. of sales area, which in this case would then require 135 parking spaces. 533 Al At this point Mr. Bierman asked what was the nature of storage contem- plated. Mr. Fanelli replied it would be used for stock for the proposed supermarket and further stated that it is not necessary to have parking spaces for the area which is used for storage and not open to the public since this area is served by the loading zone area. Mr. Bierman then asked Mr. Fanelli to explain why it was necessary to exceed the land coverage requirement. Mr. Fanelli explained that the pro- perty is covered by a good deal of rock which prevents construction of base- ments, thus requiring somewhat larger space for the stores. The cost for excavating would be extreme. At this point Mr. Gottlieb, the architect, addressed the Board and stated that a "big mountain of rock" had already been leveled some and there was still some rock remaining on the front por- tion of the lot. Mr. Bierman asked why the area coverage by the building could not be built to conform with ordinances. Mr. Fanelli stated that a supermarket is practical only if located together with several retail stores, and a struc- ture large enough for a market and four stores must occupy more than 25% of the area. He also brought out that Mr. Petchers had already invested $50,000.00 in removing rock from this area, and seeks to construct a build- ing which would permit him to recover his investment . He also pointed out that under the present existing zoning regulations, it is not possible to construct a building which would have the allowable lot coverage and still have the required number of parking spaces. He explained that after putting in a 10-foot buffer zone, in rear of property, and a loading zone area, both required by the ordinance, and sidewalks and plantings, if required, it would be physically impossible to put in the required number of parking spaces . After some discussion of the ordinance, in regard to parking spaces and storage areas, Mr. Bierman advised Mr. Fanelli he would like to defer the matter to the Town Attorney, regarding the setup of the zoning regula- tions since there was a question of same, as written, and the Board would like to investigate the matter further. In addition he suggested Mr. Fanelli be prepared to substantiate his claims that a smaller, conforming building is economically not practical. He also pointed out that economic return is not a criterion for granting a variance and was most interested in why three stores could not be built alongside the supermarket rather than four. Mr. Fanelli, as well as Mr. Petchers who said he had just completed a shopping center in Riverdale, replied that a certain number of stores is essential to attract shoppers to a center. Mr. Fanelli repeated his original reasons and also stated that Mr. Petchers has a contract with a first-class supermarket to occupy the main portion of the premises and the other four smaller stores would be occupied by normal retail outlets. The premises to be constructed would be of modern type with a very attractive appearance which, in appli- cant's opinion, would be a distinct asset to the neighborhood and, since there would be parking spaces for 110 cars, it was not felt that any traffic difficulty would be created in the area. Mr. Irving Taub appeared and voiced objection since he overlooks the Post Road. He stated that no practical difficulty or hardship was shown and zoning laws should be adhered to in order to protect everyone's property. Also Mr. Petchers was aware of the zoning when he purchased the parcel and a shopping center is not the only use to which this property could be put, in addition this shopping center would in fact cause a traffic hazard. Mr. 534 Taub also stated it is not the business of the Board to help a real estate speculator make money and added that granting the variance on the basis of the most economic use of the land would set an undesirable precedent. Hel also argued that storage space is an integral part of a retail establish- ment and should not be subtracted in figuring square feet. Mrs, Irving Taub also appeared and stated she seconded everything her husband said. Mr. Bierman pointed out to Mr. Taub the fact that if the parking spaces and lot coverage were brought within the ordinance regulations, he would be faced with a shopping center, etc. Mr. Taub said he understood this. After some further discussion, Mr. Bierman announced that the Board would defer decision until the next meeting April 22, 1964 and anyone wishing to attend might do so. He also noted that this case would be without public notice, etc. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the last application. APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 181 Application of C. L. Stafford, Jr. for modification of Article IV, Sec- tion 410, Schedule of Residence District Regulations, in a R-15 residential district, of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, so as to allow the construction of a one family dwelling having a front set back of 30-feet instead of the required 40-foot set back on the premises located on the northerly side of Mohegan Road and 150-feet west from Avon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 208, Parcel 565, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Joseph Rigano, Builder 15 Mardon Road Larchmont, New York Hugh Estes 14 Oxford Road Larchmont, New York W. L. Trenholm 29 Mohegan Road Larchmont, New York In Opposition: None Mr. Rigano, representing Mr. Stafford, told the Board that the front setback variance was desired because of the topography of the land, which slopes 20-feet, and also because the adjacent house, that of W. L. Trenholm, is set back 30-feet and the new structure would be in line with the existing one. If the house were set back 40-feet, as required, there would be a severe drainage problem and it would also require a prohibitive amount of fill and rear foundation work. Also the garage would be virtually inaccess- able . Mr. Trenhold and Mr. Estes appeared and expressed approval for the variance since it was the intent of Mr. Stafford to keep the structure parallel with the other homes on the road. After some further discussion, a vote was taken which resulted as follows: 535 Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner Mullick Aye Commissioner White Aye Commissioner Eggers Aye Commissioner Wassman Aye The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, C. L. Stafford, Jr. has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector so as to allow the construction of a one family dwelling having a front set-back of 30-feet rather than the required 40-foot set back in a R-15 district, 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 of said Ordinance, which provides for set backs, side yards, etc. ; and WHEREAS, C. L. Stafford, Jr. has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. Due to the sharply sloping terrain, a house 40-foot set-back from the road would have a severe drainage problem. 2. It would also require a prohibitive amount of fill and rear foundation work. 3. The garage would be virtually inaccessable. 4. The house would be to the rear of most of the others on the street. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also has 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 circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. Due to the sharply sloping terrain, a house 40-feet set back from the road would have a severe drainage problem. 2. It would require a prohibitive amount of fill and rear foun- dation work. 3. The garage would be virtually inaccessable. 536 4. The house would be to the rear of most of the other houses on the street. (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 construction of a one-family dwelling having a front set-back of 30-feet on the premises located on the northerly side of Mohegan Road and 150-feet west from Avon Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Blcok 208, Parcel 565, in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application, and amended, provided that the applicant complies 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 said permit. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meeting it was adjourned at 11:05 p.m. . 2�l�Cch�r c� GzL� 537