Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964_05_27 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD MAY 27, 1964, IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK POLICE STATION, 11 EDGEWOOD AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. 0 CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:12 p.m. . PRESENT: Sydney D. Bierman, Chairman Robert B. White E. Robert Wassman ABSENT: Henry E. Mullick Richard Eggers ALSO PRESENT: William Paonessa, Building Inspector MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of April 22, 1964 were approved, as corrected, on motion duly made and seconded. ANNOUNCEMENT The Chairman announced that since there were only three Board members present a unanimous vote would be necessary to grant any variance , therefore, if any person present wished to postpone his application he might do so. Since neither party, or their representative wished to postpone to the following. 4:r meeting, etc. , the Chairman proceeded with the meeting. HEARING The Chairman declared the hearing open and the secretary presented the affidavit of publication of the notice of the hearing in the official newspaper of the Town of Mamaroneck, The Daily Times, on May 19, 1964. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the first application. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 183 Application of Edward X. Mulderrig for modification of Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Residence District Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, so as to allow the construction of a second story addition over the existing dwelling, having a minimum front set-back of 23-feet, a mini- mum rear yard of 20-feet, and a minimum side yard of 3.75-feet in a R-6 Residence District which requires a minimum front set-back of 30-feet, a minimum rear yard of 25-feet, and a minimum side yard of 8-feet on the premises located at 78 Hill- crest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 123 , Parcel 398 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Peter Moore, Architect 124 Murray Avenue Larchmont, New York Edward X. Mulderrig 78 Hillcrest Avenue Larchmont, New York 548 C. James Brenner 207 Weaver Street Larchmont, New York In Opposition: None Communications: None Mr. Moore, representing the applicant , appeared and submitted plans for the proposed second story addition to the present dwelling. He stated the applicant had called on him after having made a contract with a "home improvement" con- tractor. The contractor made a preliminary building application and was rejected by the Building Inspector. The applicant never proceeded with applying for a variance at this time. He later called on Mr. Moore who made certain changes on the plan and proceeded to apply for a variance. Mr. Moore presented a survey of the property and photographs of the present house in the event some of the Commissioners were unable to view the site, etc. These were received and filed for the record. Mr. Bierman asked who owned lots 61 and 62 to which Mr. Mulderrig replied he did and also lot 63. He purchased the entire parcel in 1961 and has held in his name ever since. It was further established that the prior owner had held this property three years prior to Mr. Mulderrig's ownership. Mr. White questioned what type of room was in the back portion of the present dwelling and Mr. Mulderrig explained this was a kitchenette and bathroom. Mr. Bierman asked the applicant if he understood that lots 62 and 63 alone did not constitute a building lot and the applicant replied that he was aware of this. Mr. Bierman then asked the applicant why this addition was necessary and Mr. Mulderrig explained that he needed the additional space for his growing family, now including four children, and had only two bedrooms at present. The second story would provide four bedrooms and a bath. He had chosen to build up, instead of out, because of the much lower cost and preferred to add rather than to seek larger quarters also because of financial limitations. Also he likes the neigh- borhood and his family is very happy there . Mr. Bierman asked what the estimated cost in going out was as against going up and Mr. Mulderrig replied $7,000.00 to $8,000.00 and $5,000.00 respectively. Mr. White asked if there was a basement under the existing house and if there was an intention to change the foundation line. Mr. Mulderrig replied no to both questions. It was also determined that the addition would not extend beyond the present foundation lines. In addition the dwelling is on a 7500 square foot plot in an R-6 zone requiring 6000 square feet and a two-family use is per- mitted in this zone . After some further discussion, Mr. Bierman asked that the record show that the applicant has moved to amend his application so that he requests the variance to allow the construction of a second story in accordance with plans dated May 2, 1964 by Peter Moore, R. A. , now on file in the office of the Building Department with respect to a presently non-conforming one family dwelling structure now hav- ing a side yard of 7-feet, more or less, and a front set back of 16.3-feet, in- stead of the greater side yard, rear yard and front set back now required by the Zoning Ordinance. 549 Mr. Moore also pointed out that the property to the east of the dwelling is Town property and is the side that has the non-conforming side yard. Mr. Bierman asked the Building Inspector if there were no set back violations, as presently existing, would a two story be permitted and Mr. Paonessa replied yes. A discussion followed as to whether the second story increased the extent of non-conformity arising out of the less-than-minimum setbacks, and what Section of the Zoning Ordinance should have applied in making the denial. No conclusion was reached. The Chairman then asked if anyone was present either in favor of or in opposition to the variance requested. Mr. C. James Brenner appeared and stated he was in favor of the application. He felt this would represent an improvement to the neighborhood and would not be out of line with other houses in the vicinity. On learning that no one else wished to speak further on this application, it was announced by the Chairman that on motion by Mr. White, seconded by Mr. Wass- man, and unanimously carried, the Board voted to defer it's decision and further consideration of this application to the next meeting to be held June 24, 1964, at the same time and place, with no further publication required. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the second application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 184 Application of Emilia Ferrari for modification of Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Residence District Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, so as to permit a 20.5-foot by 8-foot addition to the existing dwelling in an R-6 Residence District having a minimum rear yard of 7-feet rather than the required minimum 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. For Appellant: Frederick Hatem, Attorney 20 Redfield Street Rye, New York In Opposition: None Communications: None Mr. Hatem, representing the applicant, appeared and submitted plans for the proposed addition. He stated that the basis of this application was to allow the enlargement of a vestibule presently 6' x 5' into one measuring 20.5' x 8' . The reason being that the present vestibule is in need of repair due to water leakage. Since this repair to the present vestibule is necessary, the applicant proposed to do a complete job and enlarge at the same time. Mr. Bierman pointed out to Mr. Hatem that Miss Ferrari had previously made a similar application, and withdrawn when it was brought out that the house accomodated tenants constituting non-conforming two family use. Mr. Hatem said he was under the impression that this violation had been taken care of by remov- ing the owner's cooking facilities. 550 After further discussion,it was disclosed that the Building Inspector had served notice of violation to Mrs. Ferrari, following the previous hearing in Aul;ust , and that this was vacated when the gas range was removed from the tenant 's quarters since the premises no longer provided complete housekeeping facilities as defined in the ordinance . Mr. Ratem stated that he was under the impression that since this was taken care of, this would not be a point in discussion. Mr. Bierman stated this was incorrect and at the last hearing in August, Mrs. Ferrari was told she was in violation and was advised to bring an attorney with her at the next meeting, however she withdrew her application on September 16, 1963. Mr. Bierman and Mr. White pointed out that when a variance is being sought there must be more than mere technical compliance. Mr. White stated he was not convinced that the usage of the house as a two family house had actually been corrected, etc. Mr. Bierman pointed out that the Board was concerned about two families dwelling as one family unit and if Mrs. Ferrari wished to use this as a two family dwelling, she should not come before the Board and try to say this is a one family dwelling. Mr. Hatem again stated he was under the impression that by removing the gas range, etc. everything was in order. He did admit that Mrs. Ferrari did make her home on these premises and that a second family, which pays rent to her, also lives there . Mr. White noted that he did not question the good faith of the applicant, who apparently discovered she had bought a two family house in a one family zone after making payment for it. Mr. Bierman pointed out that as far as the proposed extension was concerned, it seemed to him that an expert roofer, etc. could correct without going into all these major improvements that had been proposed. The building was probably altered without plans being filed and if plans different than those laid out in the Building Department, it would seem there would be another violation, etc. In addition, Mr. Bierman pointed out to Mr. Hatem that he did not have first hand information since his client was not present to answer any of these questions with respect to nature of occupancy, etc. Mr. Hatem agreed. Mr. Bier- man also stated that the attorney apparently made personal assumptions and the Chairman felt he should definitely have Mrs. Ferrari present for first hand in- formation. The attorney said he understood this. Mr. Bierman said he had spoken to Mrs. Ferrari on Sunday, May 24, 1964, and particularly asked her to be present at this meeting with counsel, and since she was not, the Boardiwould be willing to postpone the hearing to another meeting. Mr. Hatem agreed this was agreeable and requested that the date be set for the July 22, 1964 meeting, since Mrs. Ferrari would be in Europe on June 24, 1964, and the Board members agreed to this. The Chairman requested that all building records and records pertaining to previous variance applications be available at the July 22nd meeting. In addi- tion, he suggested Mr. Hatem review these records and be prepared to answer any questions, etc. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meeting it was adjourned at 10:25 p.m. . 551 L//,,.tti%�/ZGr�