Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1965_05_26 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD MAY 26, 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 8:25 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Sydney D. Bierman, Chairman Mr. Richard Eggers Mr. Henry E. Mullick Mr. Price H. Topping Mr. E. Robert Wassman Absent: None Also Present: Mr. William Paonessa Building Inspector APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of April 28, 1965 were approved as corrected, on motion duly made and seconded. 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 216 Application of Harold J. and Joan M. Sauer for modification of Article IV, Section 421.4, Walls and Fences of the Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the erection of 45 L.F. of 6' high solid wood fence along the rear portion of the westerly side line, on the premises located at 191 Weaver St. , Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tas Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 124, Parcel 502, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. 664 r04004I.Ii:—:'m..mmm.mmm The following persons were heard: In favor: Harold J. Sauer 191 Weaver St. Larchmont, N.Y. In opposition: None Communications: None Mr. Sauer stated he desired a 6' fence along the rear portion of the westerly side line of his property due to the fact that his home is on a very busy corner where traffic stops for a light and motorists throw refuse on the small strip of adjacent property. He further stated the stopped motorists stare into his garden and barbecue area preventing any privacy. Mr. Bierman questioned whether the applicant was aware that he could erect a 4' fence without the need for a variance. Mr. Sauer replied that due to the elevation of the land he would require a 6' fence to insure the privacy he needed. The Chairman stated that if the applicant felt that the adjacent property was not being maintained that he should apply to the proper authority. He also questioned Mr. Sauer whether he had contacted the owner of this vacant property and whether he had considered planting any shrubbery at the property line. Mr. Sauer replied affirmatively to both questions. At this time, Mr. Bierman announced a 5 minute recess. Following the recess, a vote was taken on the appli- cation which resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman - Naye Commissioner Eggers - Naye Commissioner Mullick - Naye Commissioner Tooping - Naye Commissioner Wassman - Naye The application was therefore denied and the following resolution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Harold J. and Joan M. Sauer have sub- mitted an application for a building permit to the building inspector for the erection of 45 L.F. of 6' high wooden fence along the rear portion of the Westerly side line of premises located at 191 Weaver St. and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 124, Parcel 502; and 665 WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the ground that erection of such fence violated Article IV, Section 421.4 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck; and WHEREAS, Harold J. and Joan M. Sauer have appealed to this Board for modification of the Building In- spector's decision pursuant to Article IV, Section 421.4 of the. Zoning Ordinance so as to allow the erection of said fence; and WHEREAS, the Board finds that no facts exist suf•- ficient to justify the erection of 45 L.F. of 6' high fence as requested, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the above application for a build- ing permit to erect 45 L.F. of fence be denied. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk in accordance with Section 267 of 1 the Town Law. The secretary then read the next application and the Chair- man announced that Commissioner Eggers would abstain from casting a vote on this application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - Case 217 Application of Arturo Mancini for modification of Article IV, 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 having an existing building coverage of 82%, gross floor area of 125% in relation to lot area, a rear yard of 5' ; rather than the required maximum building coverage of 25% maximum floor area in relation to percent of lot area of 50%, allow- able minimum rear yard of 25 feet, ,on the premises located at 1 Vine Street, Larchmont, N.Y. and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 126, Parcel 730 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. The following persons were heard: In favor: Mr. Arturo Mancini Mr. Arturo Mancini, Jr. Mr. Raymond Mancini Mr. Victor Mancini Mr. Robert Garlock, Attorney Mr. Peter Moore, Architect In opposition: Mr. Anthony Librandi 666 Mr. Peter Perciasepe Mr. Salvatore Zavaglia Mr. Sohn Gironda Mr. Frank Claps= Mr. Carmine Perciasepe Mr. Vincent Ciardullo Communications: None Mr. Garlock, representing Mr. Mancini emphasized again, as he had done at the March meeting when the hearing was adjourned for two months at his request, that the garage is a proper use and the proposed offices are a proper use of the property within present zoning. Mr. Garlock further stated that the revision of the original proposal consisted in planning for a second floor which would not entirely cover the roof of the existing build- ing and for redesigned exterior. The latter, it was conceded by some of the objectors to the proposal, would improve the general appearance of the garage. Renderings of the remodeled building were prepared and exhibited by Peter Moore, Architect. Mr. Garlock stressed that the garage and service station operation have suffered considerable economic hardbhip as a result of municipal action - The rerouting of traffic at the railroad station since the advent of the Thruway. The following figures showing a decline in gasoline sales from an average of 22,500 gallons per month to 16,000 and in storage income from $950.00 to $410.00, which had been presented previously, were herewith resubmitted for the record as follows: From the "Original Book of Entry" Page 82 - Average gasoline sales 1954 - 1955 22,000 gallons per month Page 66 - 1964 - Highest - 18,834 gallons Lowest - February 1965 - 15,087 Average - Approx. 16,500 Page 74 - 1960 - Highest - 17,729 gallons Lowest - 15,649 " Average - 16,000 " 1961 - Highest - 18,435 gallons Lowest - 13,034 " Average - 15,000 " Page 83 - Revenues from parking 1955 - Average income - $950.00 Highest $969.00 667 Page 67 - Rental Income - 1964 - $495.00 1964 high - $610.00 dropped to $522.00 At the present time gross income is $410 per month. Mr. Bierman asked whether any claim was filed for loss resulting from the construction of the Thruway. Mr. Garlock replied there was not. A petition opposing the application signed by 42 members of the Myrtle Blvd. Association was reaffirmed by Vincent Ciardullo. Asked to examine the revised plans and rendering, he again con- firmed his association's opposition on the ground of additional traffic and parking problems. Mr. Garlock stated that according to Victor Mancini, parking would be provided in the garage which can handle as many as 65 cars on an attended basis. Mr. Garlock brought out that more than 40 spaces are available each day at noon in the ad- jacent town-operated metered parking lot, but residents of the area disagreed and pointed to existing excessive parking on Vine Street and other nearby streets. At the Chairman's request letters of opposition received from the Garden Club of Larchmont and the Recreation Commission of the Town of Mamaroneck previously presented and ordered re- ceived and filed, were resubmitted for the record. The ob- jections presented by Mr. Garlock and Commissioner Wassman also noted that the second hearing was readvertised yet neither the Garden Club nor the Recreation Commission resubmitted their opposing views. Eugene Agnessanto of 83 Myrtle Bled. wanted to know if granting the application would set a precedent for other businesses in similar circumstances and Mr. Bierman explained that each appli- cation is dealt with on the basis of its own pertinent facts. Chief Librandi said he owns a parcel closest to the garage separated only by the Town parking lot, and has a contract to sell it but the potential purchaser objects to the proposed variance. He also stated that as fire chief he was concerned about tenants above a garage where gasoline and other flammables are stored. He further objected to increased floor area and to the parking problem which would not be solved by attended park- ing. When storage was used to capacity, Mr. Librandi said there would be as many as 6 cars put out on the street to get one out and they sometimes stayed on the street. Mr. Garlock remarked that all construction would of course comply with all requirements of the building code including those con- cerned with fire safety. 668 Answering a question about the safety of children using nearby parks, Arthur Mancini, Jr. pointed out that the park in front of the garage is entirely fenced in and con- cerning traffic, Victor Mancini reported a five week count of cars passing Depot Way and Vine Street during non-com- muter hours to average 45 a day. At this time, the Chairman announced a 10 minute recess. Following the recess, a vote was taken on the application which resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman - Naye Commissioner Mullick - Naye Commissioner Topping - Naye Commissioner Wassman - Naye Commissioner Eggers - Abstaining The application was therefor denied and the following reso- lution duly adopted: WHEREAS, Arturo Mancini has submitted an appli- cation for a building permit to the Building In- spector for the construction of a second story addition to the present garage to be used for business offices, 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 Article IV, Sec- tion 410, Schedule of permitted uses in "B" Busi- ness Districts; and WHEREAS, Arturo Mancini has submitted to this Board an application for variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hard:- ship for the following reasons: 1. The construction of the New England Thruway, the relocation of the railroad station and the closing of Depot Way, have had a serious economic impact upon Appell- ant's building. 2. Appellant is faced with a practical difficulty since the lands surrouding his building have been preempted by other govern- ment agencies_-for the purpose of a parking lot, and the Appellant is hhus unable to expand his land holdings. 3. The proposed alteration will in no way change the character of the neighborhood; that his build- ing is open to light and air in all directions 6or 669 substantial distances. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also viewed the property and has heard all persons in- terested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board denies 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 condi- tions 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 in- tent 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 accofdance with Section 267 of the Town Law. ADJOURNMENT': There being no further business to bome before this meeting, it was adjourned at 10:55 p.m. C . Le Esta E. Davis, Secretary 670