Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964_10_28 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS O OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD OCTOBER 28, 1964, 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: 00 p.m. PRESENT: Sydney D. Bierman, Chairman E. Robert Wassman Henry E. Mullick Richard Eggers Price H. Topping ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: William Paonessa, Building Inspector MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of September 23 , 1964 were approved on motion duly made and seconded. 4011) HEARING The Chairman declared the hearing open and the secrbtary presented the affidavit of publication of the notice of pub- lication of the notice of the hearing in the official news- paper of the Town of Mamaroneck, The Daily Times , on October 22 , 1964. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The Chairman welcomed Mr. Topping, recently appointed by the Town Council to the post vacated by Robert B. White, to his first meeting. The Chairman read a letter received from Frank D. Gironda of 11 Cabot Road, Larchmont, New York, stating he had read the public notice advertising the Seven applications for zoning variance and wished to "vote to permit all seven on the grounds that that gives work to the trades and enhances sale of mater- ials. This letter was received and filed for the record. Mr. Bierman announced the Board had set November 18, 1964 1 as the date of its next meeting, ordinarily held on the 4th Wednesday of the month, in order to avoid conflict with Thanks- giving Eve. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the first application. 583 r I j APPLICATION NO. 1 CASE 193 Ce Application of Carlo Ronconi for modification of Article IV Section 410, Schedule of Regulations for Non-Residential districts of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck so as to allow the construction of an attached storage build- ing to the existing building, in a "B" Business District , in- creasing the building coverage to 52% rather than the allow- able maximum requirement of 25% on the premises located at 615 Fifth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 131 , Parcel 344 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant : Joseph R. Pisani , Attorney Gaynor, Freeman, Glick & Pisani 271 North Avenue New Rochelle, N. Y. Carlo Ronconi 615 Fifth Avenue Larchmont, N.Y. In Opposition: None CCommunications : None Mr. Pisani , representing Carlo Ronconi, appeared and stated that Mr. Ronconi had previously addressed the Board, along with a photograph and literature of the build- ing he now planned to erect . These were submitted for the record on September 23 , 1964 when request was made for a rehearing of Mr. Ronconi ' s appli- cation which had been denied in July by a 2-2 vote. The Chairman asked Mr. Pisani how this application differed from the original application in July and he explained that at that time his client did not offer to agree to a proposed condi- tion that the prefabricated metal building would be removed if usage or ownership changed, and now he was fully prepared to do so. At the request of Mr. Bierman, Mr. Pisani for the benefit of two of the members who were not present at the July meeting reviewed the previous presentation. He stated that his client had been located at the present address since 1949 and prior to that time, the business was conducted on a contiguous par- cel in Larchmont . In total, the firm has been in business since 1936. Because of the nature of the business , there is absolutely no disturbance to adjoining properties since all the repairs are performed inside of the premises . The added area applied for in this application is for the storage of 584 power equipment . This requirement of storage space is unique to the business of the applicant. Mr. Ronconi offers a ser- vice to the residents where, in the fall of the year, he takes in power equipment, restores and repairs the equipment over the winter season, and keeps the equipment in storage until the customer is ready to use it again in the spring. This necessi- ' tates a large contiguous storage capacity which Mr. Ronconi does not have available at the present time. It would be an extreme hardship for him to move , and in fact , near impossible. He further stated the applicant would be willing to accept any reasonable conditions which will limit the existence of the proposed building to the purpose for which it is constructed and for a period of time that the applicant occupied the premises . This will insure the fact that no change of use can ever take place within the proposed structure. Since the building will be a prefabricated steel structure , it can, be taken down with- out too much difficulty if the conditions are not complied with. Mr. Bierman stated that the land usage is already noncon- forming as a result of a variance granted two years ago when it was contended that that was the limit of proposed expansion. Mr. Pisani and Mr. Ronconi assured the Board that no fur- 1 10 ther expansion could take place since the remaining land area was needed for adequate parking. A lengthy discussion followed as to the number of off street parking spaces required taking into consideration the thirteen people employed by Mr. Ronconi, the 20 ' x 20 ' show room, the loading and unloading areas , etc. It was established by Mr. Eggers and Mr. Paonessa that Mr. Ronconi had over 2000 sq. ft. more than required for parking. Mr. Wassman suggested a second story to present buildings and Mr. Ronconi explained the equipment would be too cumbersome to handle. Mr. Paonessa added that none of these buildings were built for second floor additions. After further questioning by Mr. Eggers and Mr. Bierman, Mr. Ronconi further stated that this addition was required to re- duce damage to the equipment left outdoors and also damage from stacking the equipment too high. The Chairman declared a 10 minute recess. Following this recess , the Chairman asked Mr. Pisani if he would be willing to accept the following conditions , if granted a variance, for the proposed structure : 1. - The lot coverage to be confined to extent shown in application. 585 2 . - The structure to be erected in the location specified in the plot plan. 3 . - The structure to be erected so as to be readily removable . 4. - That all parking requirements be in accordance with pro- visions of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be adhered to at all times . 5 . - The variance to remain in effect only so long as the current occupant remains in possession of the entire parcel and there is no change in the nature or ownership of the business now carried on or of the parcel and if so the variance shall ex- pire forthwith and the structure shall be disassembled and re- moved forthwith upon occurance of any such change. 6. - The usage of the proposed structure and the two other metal buildings on the premises are to be restricted to dry stor- age and no other purpose. Mr. Pisani stated he and the applicant understood and would accept these conditions. A vote was then taken which resulted as follows : Commissioner Bierman - Aye Commissioner Mullick - Aye Commissioner Eggers - Aye Commissioner Wassman - Naye Commissioner Topping - Naye The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Carlo Ronconi has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for the construction of a 56 ' x 50 ' storage building, attached to the existing building in a "B" Business 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 refer- ence to Section 410, Schedule of Regulations for Non-Residential Districts , in a "B" Business District of said Ordinance, which provides for maximum building coverage ; and WHEREAS , Carlo Ronconi has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/Or un- necessary hardship for the following reasons : 1. - To provide a building for storing excess lawn equipment that his expanding business requires. In addition it would also prevent possible theft 586 of the lawn equipment. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also has viewed the property and has heard all persons interested in this appli- cation 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 build- ing 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. - The building for storing excess lawn equip- 4:3 ment is required as it will prevent possible theft, reduce damage to equipment left out- doors or presently being stacked too high. which circumstances and/or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Section 410 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 ad- justment 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 pub- lic welfare ; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted to the OPIN applicant and that Article IV, Section 410 be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling, having a side yard of 8-feet, in a R-10 Residence District , on the premises located at 77 Briar cliff Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of 587 Mamaroneck as Block 220 , Parcel 300, in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application, and amended, provided that O the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ord- inance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck and subject to the following conditions : 1. - The lot coverage to be confined to extent shown in application. 2 . - The structure to be erected in the location specified in the plot plan. 3 . - The stricture to be erected so as to be readily re- movable. 4. - That all parking requirements be in accordance with provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and shall be ad- hered to at all times. 5 . - The variance to remain in effect only so long as the current occupant remains in possession of the entire parcel and there is no change in the nature or owner- ship of the business now carried on or of the parcel and if so the variance shall expire forthwith and the structure shall be disassembled and removed forth- with upon occurance of any such change. 6. - The usage of the proposed structure and the two other metal buildings on the premises are to be restricted to dry storage and no other purpose . FURTH;3R RESOLVED; .ih«t in accordance with the Rules and Regula- tions of the Zoning Board where a variance is granted, the appli- cant shall obtain a building permit within three months of the filing of this resolution with the town Clerk. A building per- mit shall be void if construction is not started within six months and completed within two years of the date 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 second application. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE NO. 194 Application of Serafino Librandi for modification of Article IV, Sections 410 and 440. 3 , Schedule of Residence District Regulations 588 1 I for an R-6 District of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaro- neck so as to allow an addition to the existing dwelling which will have a front set back of 11-feet from the street property C line instead of the minimum requirements of 30-feet on the pre- mises located at 93 Myrtle Blvd.and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 125 , Parcel 399, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant : Anthony Librandi 12 Thompson Street Larchmont , N.Y. In Opposition: William Murray 94 Myrtle Blvd. Larchmont , N.Y. Communications : None Anthony Librandi, representing his mother Serafino Librandi, appeared and submitted a plot plan and drawing showing construct- ion of the proposed replacement of a roof over a porch at the rear of the existing dwelling. Mr. Librandi stated the proposed construction was to replace an inadequate canvas awning over a concrete porch which forms the 400 roof of the garage. The awning as well as the steel reinforce- ments of same have deteriorated from ice and snow consequently causing cracks in the concrete floor of the porch and numerous water leaks to the garage below. In putting a permanent roof over the porch it will prevent further damage. After questioning Mr. Librandi, it was established by Mr. Bierman that the premises are used as a three family residence by virtue of prior usage of some 40 years standing. Mr. Bierman called Mr. Librandi ' s attention to the unsightly conditions surrounding the garage. He also pointed out that the premises are not being kept up in the manner that the general area is being kept in. He stated that the top of the awning which were metal struts were in poor condition and that there were rem- nants of clapboard lying on top. Mr. Librandi explained that the overhead doors of the garage are not working and the clapboard was used over the porch as a temporary measure for protection of weather until a permanent roof could be constructed. The garage doors will eventually be repaired as well as the concrete driveway, and will be used as a garage again which will then elim- inate one of the cars being parked in driveway and he would gen- erally clean up the area. Mr . Bierman stated he had received a telephone call at his home , earlier in the evening from Mr. Murray who wished to go on record as being opposed to the granting of a variance to Mrs Libtandi as it would be an extension of a non-conforming use . 589 A vote was taken which resulted as follows : Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner Mullick Aye Commissioner Eggers Aye Commissioner Wassman Aye Commissioner Topping Aye The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Serafino Librandi has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector so as to allow an addition to the existing dwelling in an R-6 Residence 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 refer- ences to Article IV, Section 410 which provides for set backs, side yards, plat area, etc. and Section 440. 3 which provides for non-conforming use of buildings, etc. ; of said ordinance ; and WHEREAS, Serafino Librandi has submitted to this Board an appli- © cation for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. To provide a replacement of an inadequate canvas awning over a concrete porch, which forms the roof of the garage below, which has caused numerous cracks in the concrete floor of porch and water leaks to the garage below. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also has viewed the property and has heard all persons interested in this appli- cation 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 condi- tions have not resulted from any acts of the applicant subsequent to the data of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the aforesaid circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. The canvas awning over the concrete porch is in- adequate and the construction of a permanent roof 590 over said porch will eliminate further damage to the garage below same„which circumstances and/or condi- tions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Section 410 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 other- wise detrimental to the public welfare ; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted to the appli- cant and that Article IV, Section 410 be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling having a side yard of 8-feet, in a R-lp Residence District, on the premises located at 77 Briarcliff Road and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 220, Parcel 300, in strict conformance with the plans filed with this application and Q amended provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaro- neck 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 the date 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 applic- ation. APPLICATION NO. 3 CASE.tL95 Application of Charles Revson for modification of Article IV, 4:, Section 424.1 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, Dwellings in Louse Trailers, so as to allow temporary living quarters to be maintained in a house trailer parked in an R-30 Residential District, on the premises located at Premium Point Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck 591 as Block 509, Parcel 86, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant : Elliot Saltzman, Architect 4 East 54th Street New York 22 , New York Communications: John Irwin Dugan, President Premium Point Corporation New Rochelle, New York William Black Bon Repos , Premium Point New Rochelle, N.Y. Alfred E. Perlman Bon Repos , Premium Point New Rochelle , N.Y. In Opposition: None Mr. Saltzman, representing Charles Revson, appeared and stated he had appeared before the Board previously on March 25 , 1964 and had been granted a variance for use of a trailer to accommodate the increased Revson Family, and to provide tempor= ary living areas while themain house was undergoing expansion and alteration. The expansion and alteration was required as Mr . Revson had recently remarried, and the family had doubled in size to six children of various ages requiring additional bedroom space immediately. The variance granted required that satisfactory building plans be filed and a building permit be issued by October 31 , 1964 and the variance to expire March 31 , 1965 . Mr . Saltzman further stated it had been impossible to main- tain this schedule , as the proposed alteration had increased in scope and complexity, with an estimated cost of $250, 000. 00 To date, five sets of preliminary plans and over a dozen exterior studies had been completed, but no final design has actually been achieved. The preliminary plans , etc. were shown to the Board. He now estimated that at least six months additional time would be required to complete the final plans and probably 9 months to a year to do the actual construction work. Based on this he was now asking for an extension of the permit previously granted. Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Saltzman to state what period of time he actually required and it was determined at aleast a year. Mr. Bier- man then asked that the application be amended to show that the re- quest now being made was actually to allow the variance now in effect to be extended for a period expiring 10/31/65 upon which date the variance shall automatically expire and the mobile home forthwith removed from the premises and further, in the event of a change in the ownership or occupancy of the premises prior to 10/31/65 the variance shall automically expire forthwith on the date of such change and the mobile home shall thereupon be removed. 592 The Chairman then read three letters, urging approval of the i application, from two Premium Point neighbors, Alfred Perlman and 4:) William Black, and from John Irwin Dugan, President of the Premium Point Corporation. These letters were received and filed for the record. A vote was then taken which resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner Eggers Aye Commissioner Mullick Aye Commissioner Wassman Aye Commissioner Topping r.Aye The following resolution was adop#,ed: WHEREAS, Charles Revson has submitted an application fog a building permit to the Building Inspector so as to allow temporary living quarters to be maintained in a house trailer at the existing dwell- ing, 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 soak Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular refer- ence to Section 424. 1 of said Ordinance, which provides for dwell- ings 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 unnecess- ary hardship for the following reasons: 1. To allow for temporary expansion of living areas of house to accommodate increased family size, and to provide temporary living areas while the main building is under- going 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 requiring additional bedroom space immediately. 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: 0.14 (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions apply- ing to the land/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 593 and/or buildings in the district , and which circumstances and conditions have not resulted from any acts of the appli- cant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. 0 (b) That the aforesaid circumstances and/or conditions are as follows : 1. Temporary expansion is required to accommodate increased family size and to provide temporary living areas while the main building is undergoing expansion and alteration and is required as family had 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 Section 424. 1 would deprive the applicant of the reason- ble 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/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 C the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detri- mental 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 quartees to be maintained in a house trailer, 17-feet by 55-feet , on the premises located at Permium 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 applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of oMamaroneck and subject to the following conditions : 1. That the filing, by the applicant , of satisfactory building plans for the proposed renova'ion of the house and a building permit be issued and all work oompleted by October 31, 1965. C 2 . The variance shall expire October 31 , 1965 and the trailer shall be removed from the property forthwith. 3. The variance shall automatically expire and the mobile home forthwith removed from the premises and further, in the owner- ship or occupancy of the premises , in the event of a change prior to 10/31/65 , the variance shall automatically expire forthwith on the date of such change, and the mobile home shall thereupon be removed. 594 FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Board where a variance is granted. the applicant shall complete all work by October 31, 1965 and said permit to become void if work not completed by October 31, 1965 , as herein provided. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision to be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman announced that due to another appointment , Mr. Eggers had to leave thereby reducing the Board to only four members. The Secretary then read the fourth application. APPLICATION NO. 4 - CASE 196 Application of Robert E. Pyle for modification of Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Residence District Regulations for an R-6 District of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck so as to allow an addition to the existing dwelling which will have a rear yard of 16-feet , more or less , instead of the minimum requirement of 25-feet on the premises located at 7 Byron Lane and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 121 , Parcel 476, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. C For Appellant : Mr. & Mrs . Robert E. Pyle 7 Byron Lane Larchmont , N.Y. In Opposition: None Communications: None Mr. Pyle, representing himself, appeared and stated that the rear stoop and stairs of his house had to be removed because they were in bad repair and he wished to replace them with a larger porch of greater utility for his family. He does not have much of a yard and would like this larger porch for recreational pur- poses for his family. He had purchased the house with the in- tention of doing this alteration and was only recently aware of the fact that he would be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. Mrs. Pyle also appeared and stated she wished to second what her husband had stated and stressed again the need for this larger porch which would provide a recreation area for her thrte children. After some further discussion, in which the Chairman stated he could not see where any practical difficulty, etc. had been 4:1) shown as Mr. Pyle was entitled _to replace the stoop and stairs to the size 595 they originally were. 4:) A vote was taken which resulted as follows: Commissioner , Bierman Naye Commissioner Muilick Naye Commissioner Wassman Naye Commissioner Toppf.ng Naye The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Robert E. Pyle , has submitted an application for a build- W ing permit to the Building Inspector for the construction of an addition to the existing building, together with plans ; and L5 WHEREAS the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the ground that the plans submitted failed to comply with the 2E Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular refer- = ence to Section 410, Schedule of Residence District Regulations OC for an R-6 District of said Ordinance, which provides for mini- mum rear yards, etc. ; and m WHEREAS , Robert E. Pyle has submitted to this Board an applica- ) 4:) tion for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. Rear stoop and stairs have been removed because of badly needed repairs and were unsafe for family use. Larger replacement of same would provide greater recreation area for his children. 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 circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land and which do not apply generally to land in the district. 4:);15 W 2 . That the facts and circumstances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as would de- prive him of the reasonable use of the land and that the granting of the variance is not necessary for the reasonable _ O 5Z 596 use of the land. LLI ' U, 3 . That the granting of the variance would not be in harmony 115 with the general purposes and intent of this Ordinance and would be injurious to the neighborhood and detrimental to the public welfare. OC FURTHER RESOLVED that this decision be filed with Town Clerk in accordance with Section 267 of the Town Law. m The Chairman requested the secretary to read the fifth application. APPLICATION NO. 5 - CASE 197 Application of Emilia Ferrari for modification of Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Permitted Uses for an R-6 District of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck so as to permit the existing dwelling to be used as a two-family residence in- stead of the permitted use of a one-family dwelling on the prem- ises 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. I 0 For Appellant: Frederick D. Hatem, Attorney 20 Redfield Street Rye, New York In Opposition: William Murray 94 Myrtle Blvd. Larchmont, N. Y. Y Communications : None U Mr. Hatem, representing Mrs. Ferrari, appeared and stated that the applicant was requesting the Board to allow the first dS floor portion of the premises to be used and occupied as a 2E separate apartment so that suitable cooking facilities will be Oht available. There will be no outward change in the dwelling and no material change in the character of the neighborhood would result if a Certificate of Occupancy was issued. Mrs. Ferrari m purchased this home on March 2 , 1959, before the present ordi- nance went into effect. To deprive the applicant of cooking facilities in her own home or to cause her to lose the income from renting the upstairs apartment would cause her great practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship. Except for the cooking facilities, the downstairs prem- ises meets every other legal requirement as to adequacy of air, light and sanitary facilities. 597 At the time of the purchase, the house was being maintained as a two family dwelling and the applicant purchased the house C with the intent of using it in the same manner believing she was within the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Bierman pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance was made up with the intention this area be a one family area and what the applicant was now asking for was that this particular lot should have been zoned to permit a two family dwelling and that the Planning Board was in error. Mr. Hatem pointed out that there are other homes in the area being used as two family dwellings. At the request of Mr. Bierman, Mr riatem submitted a copy of the Tax Assessment Map indicating the dwellings presently being used as multiple dwellings in this area. This map was received and filed for the record. The Chairman questioned the Building Inspector as to whether these were conforming or in violation. Mr. Paonessa said he could not tell without investigation, etc. Mr. Bierman asked if the applicant had considered apply- ing to the Town Board to rezone this tract to a two family C usage and Mr. Hatem stated he had not considered this as he thought the Zoning Board could take care of this situation. Mr. Hatem asked the Board to consider the economic hard- ships and the lack of cooking facilities that Mrs. Ferrari is faced with when considering her case. Mr. Bierman stated he had received a telephone call from Mr. Murray who wished to go on record as opposing the granting of this variance on the basis it would constitute a rezoning in a one family area by providing a two family dwelling. Following some further discussion, a A vote was taken which resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Naye Commissioner Mullick Naye Commissioner Topping Naye Commissioner Wassman Naye The Following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Emilia Ferrari, has submitted an application for a Certificate of Occupancy to the Building Inspector to permit the existing dwelling to be used as a two family residence ; and 598 Eta'; WHEREAS the Building Inspector has refused to issue such certi- ficate on the ground that the dwelling was located in an R-6 Residential one family District of the Town of Mamaroneck; and would not comply with Zoning Ordinance ; and WHEREAS, Emilia Ferrari has submitted to this Board an application for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or un- necessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. - Applicant purchased dwelling on March 2 , 1959, which dwelling was being maintained as a two family residence and was purchased with the intention of using the dwell- ® ing in the same manner, as she was not aware of being in violation of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. - This would deprive the applicant of cooking facilities on the first floor of said dwelling. W 3 . - This would cause loss of income from renting the up- Q� stairs apartment. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also viewed the 013 property and has heard all persons interested in this application X after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board denied the application upon the follow- ing grounds: 1. - That there are no special circumstances or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought which circumstances 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 appli- cant 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 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. Lv 599 The Chairman requested the secretary to read the sixth Qapplication. APPLICATION NO. 6 - CASE 198 Application of Dunkin Donuts Franchising Corp. for modification of Article IV, Section 410, Schedule of Regulations for Non- Residential Districts and Article IV, Section 450.4, "K" and "L" , Off-Street Parking Requirements of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck so as to allow the construction of a retail store which will have a minimum front set back of 45-feet in- stead of the required minimum of 75-feet and the construction of an off-street parking area which will have parking facili- ties for five cars rather than the required minimum of eight cars for the proposed use on the premises located at 1261 Boston Post Road and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 412 , Parcel 439 , on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant : A. L. Christoffers , Agent Dunkin Donuts Franchising Corp. 440 Hancock Street Quincy, Mass . In Opposition: Orienta Association Mamaroneck, New York Irving Cook Boston Post Road Mamaroneck, N.Y. Thomas Kohlberg 955 Protano Lane Mamaroneck, N.Y. Donald Stone 405 Toni Lane Mamaroneck, N.Y. Village of Mamaroneck Village Hall • Mamaroneck, N.Y. Otto Scheuble 3 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont , N.Y. Julius Anger 23 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont , N.Y. Mrs . Ralph Manella 27 Rock Ridge Road Larchmont , N.Y. Communications : None Mr. Christoffers; representing Dunkin Donuts Franchising Corp. , appeared and submitted plans for both the proposed 600 structure and parking area. He stated Dunkin Donuts proposed to construct a building 25-feet from the rear property line and 45-feet from the front property line. Figuring its sales area as under 400-feet which would require parking for eight cars , the company proposed to establish nine spaces , five of these in back of the building line and four in front . The Zoning Ordinance requires off- street parking for five cars behind the building line . Mr. Christoffers pointed out that it would not be possible to maintain the required rear set back of 25-feet and front set back of 75-feet as well because of the depth of the property. The required rear set back is indicated on the plan, as required, but it would be an extreme hardship to be behind the front of adjacent buildings if the requested 45-foot set back could not be gained. A discussion followed on the required curb cuts ( which would control traffic) , and plantings along front where no curb cuts would exist . During this discussion, Mr. Paonessa questioned how the applicant planned on meeting the 10-ft. rear buffer strip as required, on the rear property line which is actually atop a cliff. Mr. Bierman suggested a 6-foot stockade fence be erect- ed as the buffer strip. Mr. Christoffers stated he would comply with the proposals of the 6-foot fence and the plantings along front where no curb cuts would exist. Mr. William J. Rooney, attorney representing the Orienta Point Association stated the Association was in opposition and called attenr_ Lon to the trafLLL: hazard which would be created by establishing another drive-in type of restaurant operation at the proposed site . The location would place it between Cook ' s Drive-In Restaurant and Rose Cleaners Drive-In Store , one store away from Mc Donalds Hamburgers Drive-in Restaurant and directly opposite a shopping center. It would be located near the crest of a hill on Boston Post Road, so that traffic approaching from the west would not be able to see cars turning into the pro- posed location of Dunkin Donuts until they were almost on top of them. Further, the proposed location is almost amid the Jr. High, Central, Sr. High and Cargill Schools . Mr. Rooney submitted a letter to the Board of Appeals which contained the objections stated during this meeting. He stated a copy of this letter had been forwarded to the N.Y. State Dept. of Public Works so they might be aware of the opposition of the Association, etc. This letter was received and filed for the record. Mr. Irving Wein, Attorney representing Cook ' s Restaurant , criticized the parking provisions proposed as inadequate and 601 suggested that Dunkin Donuts customers would park at Cook ' s. He pointed out that Mr. Cook was not trying to stop competition, O cut would favor a building at the property line permitting more parking in the rear. In addition, he felt the applicant had not shown a lot that was irregular and could not be built on, but had shown that his particular business could not be placed with- in the Zoning Regulations , etc. , and felt the Board did not have the power to grant a variance unless hardship is shown. Letters from Otto Scheuble and the Village of Mamaroneck were read by the Chairman and submitted for the record. Letters from Otto Scheuble, also signed by Mrs. Ralph Manella and Julius Anger, and the Village of Mamaroneck voicing opposition were read by the Chairman. These were received and filed for the record. Mr. Scheuble noted that whatever hardship exists was created by the owner, Don Elkind, who at one time owned the entire parcel on which Rose Cleaners and McDonald ' s Restaurant are situated. He also stressed that the safety of children walking to the new Central School in Cargill Park would be threatened. The Village expressed that their desire was that the Board C in considering this application, place special emphasis on pro- viding proper and adequate parking to commensurate with the type of operation involved. Thomas Kohlberg spoke in opposition. His objections were that the traffic situation would be increased and would worsen with the new school , etc. Mr. Wein again spoke of the parking spaces not being ade- quate and pointed out that Dunkin Donut Customers would avail themselves of Cook ' s parking facilities, as other places of business now do when their parking facilities filled, etc . Mr. Bierman pointed out that if the Board felt that the parking was insufficient and was designed to overflow into someone elses property they wouldnit grant a variance however if they felt it was sufficient , the Board couldn 't police the traffic for Cooks or other adjoining businesses . Donald Stone spoke in opposition stating he felt something other than a restaurant would be far better as there would not be as much traffic. Also that the dip in the road referred to by Mr. Rooney was extremely hazardous , etc. It was after some further discussion that Mr. Christoffers discovered no variance would be needed to place the building at the front line and parking requirements could then be met be- 602 hind the building line. He apologized to the Board for taking up their time , etc. and indicated that consideration will be 4:› given to placing the building perpendicular to the street, with the back toward Rose Cleaners and asked that consideration of the application be postponed until the next meeting. This was agreed upon by unanimous consent of thia Board. The Chairman requested the secretary to read the last applic- ation. APPLICATION NO. 7 - CASE 199 Application of Dr. and Mrs. James Q. Haralambie for modification of Article IV, section 410, Schedule of Residence District Regu- lations for an R-15 District of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck so as to allow an addition to the westerly side of the existing dwelling which will have a front set back of 23 . 1-ft. from Park Hill Lane rather than the required minimum front set back of 40-feet on the premises located at 32 Bonnie Way and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 104, Parcel 46, on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant : Dr. & Mrs James Q. Haralambie 4:› 32 Bonnie Way Larchmont , New York Robert Gibson 22 Maple Hill Drive Larchmont , N.Y. Communications : Richard F. Wood 10 Eastern Avenue Annapolis , Maryland In Opposition: None Peter Moore, Architect representing the applicants appeared and presented plans for the proposed addition. He stated the property was not a corner lot when purchased in 1950 and until the creation of Park Hill Lane two years ago, would not have required a variance to construct an addition. Building to the rear is precluded by the topography of the rocky parcel. . In addition the owner ' s profession makes it mandatory that a quiet place of study be available and the present house size and arrange- ment eliminate this possibility. Mr. Moore submitted a letter from Richard F. Wood, President of Rockcliffe Estates, Inc. stating neither he nor his son had `"" N any objections to the variance being requested. Mr. Bierman asked why a two story addition was required and Mr. Moore explained that the study would connect to the Master bedroom upstairs. Dr. Haralambie added that the present porch cannot be used year rou413 however by closing in and en- larging same and building the study above it would help relieve the present crowded facilities due to their large family. It was established by the Chairman that the dwelling is in the name of Dr. & Mrs. James Q. Haralambie. Dr. Haralambie wished to state for the record that Mr. Gibson, a neighbor, had attended the meeting to support the application but Dr. Haralambie said he insisted on his going home because of the late hour. Mrs. Haralambie added that all her neigh- bors were in favor of the variance. After a brief discussion, a vote was taken which resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner Mullick Naye Commissioner Topping Naye Commissioner Wassman Aye The Chairman advised Mr. Moore that since the plea failed on a tie vote, the Board would entertain an application for rehearing at its next meeting. The following resolution was then adopted: WHEREAS, Dr. and Mrs. James Q. Haralambie have submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for the construction of a 16' x 20' two story addition to the existing building in an R-15 Residence District, to- gether 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, Schedule of Residence District Regulations for an:R-15 District of said Ordinance, which provides for front set backs, side yards, etc. ; and WHEREAS, Dr. & Mrs. James Q. Haralambie have submitted to this Board an appli- cation for a variance on the ground of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship for the following reasons: 1. - The property was not a corner lot when purchased in 1950 and until the creation of Park Hill Lane, two years ago, to build the addition would not have required a variance. 2. - Building to the rear of the house is precluded by the topography of the rocky parcel. 3. - Owner's profession makes it mandatory that a quiet 604 place of study be available and the present house size and arrangement eliminate this possibility WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans and also viewed the property and has heard all persons interested in this application after publica- tion 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 and/or building for which the variance is sought which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land and which do not apply gen- erally to land in the district. 2. - That the facts and circumstances claimed by the apirli- cant 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 intent of this Ordinance and would be injurious to the neighborhood and detri- mental 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 adjourned at 12:40 a.m. 605