Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963_10_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD OCTOBER 23 , 1963 , 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 8:15 p.m. . PRESENT: Sydney D. Bierman, Chairman Robert B. White E. Robert Wassman Henry E. Mullick ABSENT: Richard Eggers ALSO PRESENT: William Paonessa, Building Inspector MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of September 25, 1963 were approved, as corrected, on motion duly made and seconded. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mr. Bierman announced the Board had set November 20th and December 18th as the dates of its next two meetings, ordinarily held on the fourth Wednesday of the month, in order to avoid conflict with Thanksgiving Eve and Christmas. HEARING The Chairman declared the hearing open and the secretary presented the affi- davit of publication of the notice of the hearing in the official newspaper of the Town of Mamaroneck, The Daily Times, on October 15, 1963 . APPLICATION FOR REHEARING - DANIEL V. PACE, CASE 169 Mr. Bierman read a letter, dated October 4, 1963 , from Daniel V. Pace re- questing a rehearing of his application previously denied . September 25, 1963 on the grounds there were only four members of the Board present and an automatic denial was made,due to a tie vote, on his application for variance, etc. This letter was received and filed for the record. Mr. Bierman reminded Mr. Pace, who was present, that there was no guarantee there would be a full board sitting at the next meeting, etc. Mr. Pace replied he understood this completely. The Chairman asked for a vote on the application for rehearing. A vote being taken resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner White Aye Commissioner Wassman Aye Commissioner Mullick Aye The Chairman requested the secretary to read the first application. 489 APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 170 Application of Huguette Spadaro for modification of Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Permitted Uses in a Residence District, of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck so as to allow the alteration of existing one family dwelling to be used as a two family dwelling in a R-7.5 residential one family district on the premises located at 246 Palmer Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 407, Parcel 347 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Jerome N. Wanshel, Attorney 132 Larchmont Avenue Larchmont, New York Huguette Spadaro 246 Palmer Avenue Larchmont, New York Communications: Leon Epstein Associates 123 Halstead Avenue Mamaroneck, New York Viggo Borgen 159 Larchmont Avenue Larchmont, New York Peter C. Doern, III 120 Mamaroneck Avenue Mamaroneck, New York In Opposition: Mrs. Martha Frey 12 Burton Road Larchmont, New York Mr. & Mrs. Peter Lividini 20 Burton Road Larchmont, New York Mr. & Mrs. August Boscaglia 18 Burton Road Larchmont, New York Mr. & Mrs. Joseph Crai 14 Burton Road Larchmont, New York Mr. & Mrs. Louis Goldstein 10 Burton Road Larchmont, New York James E. Renson, President Elkan Park Association Larchmont, New York James Haggerty, Secretary-Treasurer Elkan Park Association Larchmont, New York Communications: None Mr. Bierman stated that all commissioners present had viewed and in- spected the site at 246 Palmer Avenue. 490 Mr. Wanshel, representing Mrs. Spadaro, presented photographs of the house and of abutting views. He also presented two letters and one affidavit from three real estate brokers, Leon Epstein Associates, Peter C. Doern, III and Viggo Borgen, indicating that they have been unable to sell the house during the last two years because of its location in relating to the apart- ment houses and Elkan Park. The communications were read by Mr. Bierman. The letters and photographs were received and filed for the record. Mr. White asked who had title to the house and Mr. Wanshel stated the title was held in Mrs. Spadaro's name. Mr. Wanshel stated a real hardship exists because of the location of the property between Larchmont Acres apartments and the Elkan Park development of individually owned attached houses. He also said the house is situated on a 15,000 square foot lot, or double the size required in the R-7.5 residential area and could accomodate two one family dwellings if other requirements were met. In addition, no exterior changes were contemplated and creation of a small second apartment would permit the owner to rent this unit and continue to live in the house. Mr. Wanshel brought out that the house was bought six years ago by Mr. and Mrs. Spadaro and occupied for four years by the couple and their daughter however Mr. and Mrs. Spadaro are now divorced and the house is occupied by only the applicant and her daughter. In addition Mrs. Spadaro receives only a small amount from her husband. In this particular instance Mr. Wanshel felt the Board could allow the variance due to exceptional circumstances, etc. Mr. Bierman noted that while personal difficulty evokes sympathy it does not constitute economic hardship as related to the particular parcel. Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Wanshel how old the house was and at what price was it purchased. Mr. Wanshel stated the house was over fifty years old and was purchased at $19,500.00. Mr. Bierman asked what price was the applicant asking for and Mr. Wanshel replied $22,500.00 to $23 ,000.00 and no offer has ever been made as stated in the communications from three real estate brokers. Mr. Bierman said he was not impressed with the communications from the real estate brokers since they did not delineate efforts, and the brokers not being present, letters could not be cross-examined. Mr. White pointed out there was a possibility of taking in boarders which would not require variance, etc. if the applicant really needed the income. This would be one way of doing it out of the present one family house. Mr. White also stated he had seen no sign up showing the house for sale, etc. Mr. Wanshel repled that there had not been any sign up, but a majority of houses that are for sale very rarely have signs up indicating same. Mrs. Frey appeared and said she spoke for four other owners of houses on Burton Road, Mr. and Mrs. Lividini, Mr. and Mrs. Boscaglia, Mr. and Mrs. Crai and Mr. and Mrs. Goldstein. Mrs. Frey voiced opposition to the application on the ground that thirteen one family houses in the area would be downgraded if the variance were granted. She felt a precedent would bests telas well. Mrs. Frey also stated that she and the other four owners had purchased there homes 491 in good faith and since this was an A-1 residential zone their homes would be down graded. Mrs. Crai also appeared and confirmed Mrs. Frey's statements. Mr. Goldstein appeared and stated that about a year ago he had asked Mrs. Spadaro if she would like to sell a piece of property, adjoining his, to enlarge his property, etc. He said Mrs. Spadaro said she would check with her lawyer and let him know however he stated he never heard from her. Mrs. Spadaro said she understood Mr. Goldstein was to call her with an offer and wondered why she had never heard from him. Mr. James Rensen, president of the Elkan Park Association, and Mr. James Haggerty, secretary-treasurer of the association, appeared and also voiced ob- jection on the basis that the house was already substandard, and very likely has been difficult to sell for that reason, and that altering it in accordance with the plans submitted would make it even more substandard for the area. Mr. Rensen stated he represented 48 of the 50 members belonging to the association and presented a list of the 48 members he represented. This list was received and filed for the record. Mr. White asked if they had been canvassed and Mr. Rensen said yes they had been. Mr. Wassman asked if all the members were familiar with the application to which Mr. Rensen replied yes and that some of them had seen the plans for the proposed addition. Mr. Rensen also pointed out that there had been other homes sold in this area, including Elkan Park homes, in the past three months. Mr. Wanshel asked if Mr. Rensen considered the houses that were sold comparable to Mrs. Spadaros. Mr. Rensen said the dwelling is somewhat substandard for the area, but felt it would become even a lower standard if converted to a two family home. After further discussion, the Chairman asked for a vote on the application. A vote being taken resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Naye Commissioner White Naye Commissioner Wassman Naye Commissioner Mullick Naye The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Huguette Spadaro has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for the addition to the existing structure in a R-7.5 res- idential one family 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 Section 410 of said Ordinance, which provides for one family dwellings, etc. ; and 492 WHEREAS, Huguette Spadaro 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. The house is not usable or saleable as a one family house. 2. The house is abutted on one side by an apartment house, the largest in the entire Town area, and on the other side by a development of attached one family houses that have the appearance of two-story multiple family structures. 3 . The house has been on the market for a long time and no offers have been made. 4. The applicant is divorced and needs additional income to support herself and her child. 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 circum- stances 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 her to the variance are not such as would deprive her 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 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 ad- journed at 9:40 p.m. . 493