Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1963_09_25 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD SEPTEMBER 25, 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 8:05 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 John Delius, Town Attorney MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of August 28, 1963 were approved on motion duly made and seconded. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Chairman read a letter, dated September 16, 1963 , from Emilia Ferrari withdrawing her application for an 8 x 20 foot addition to her residence at 4 Baldwin Avenue, which case had been held over from the August 28, 1963 meeting, at the Board's request. This letter was received and filed for the record. The Chairman stated he had a written request from Mr. Jerome N. Wanshel, attorney for the applicant, Huguette Spadaro, to adjourn the application until the next regular meeting of the Zoning Board on October 23, 1963. Mr. Donald S. Mazin appeared, on behalf of Mr. Wanshel, and presented the request to Mr. Bier- man. The request was received and filed for the record. The adjournment was approved and the Chairman requested the secretary to republish the public notice at the expense of the applicant. 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 September 19, 1963. OLD BUSINESS - KEENAN CARPET CO. APPLICATION Mr. Bierman stated decision on the application had been deferred at the August 28, 1963 meeting following a hearing at which several residents of Rock Ridge Road voiced vigorous opposition. The deferrment was to allow Herbert S. Keller, attorney representing Keenan Carpet Co. , to present additional sketches and information from the police on the number of complaints about delivery trucks at the loading platform on Hommocks Road. Mr. Keller submitted a letter, dated September 23 , 1963, from Police Chief Paul A. Yerrick. Mr. Bierman read the letter which stated that over the years several complaints, from residents, had been registered and said off street park- ing would alleviate a traffic hazard. The letter was received and filed for the record. 479 Mr. Bierman also read a letter, dated September 19, 1963, from Mr. & Mrs. Howard G. Sloane stating that the present loading platform was unsightly and extremely hazardous, the area around the platform rutted and rubbish shrewn and proposed the request for the enlargement of the building be granted sub- ject to certain conditions. The letter was received and filed for the record. Mr. Keller presented a sketch of a one-story expansion 18-feet deep as an alternate proposal since there were so many objections to original proposed two-stories in that the two-stories would create a paraput and an additional hazard. He pointed out that this new proposal would require blasting into the cliff which shields the residential section at the rear of the property. This was received and filed for the record. Mr. Bierman asked if this was being offered as a formal amendment to the application and Mr. Keller replied no it was not. Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Keller if any sketch for landscaping in front had been prepared to which he replied that both he and Mr. Keenan had made an in- spection of the area, in respect to other commercial property in the area, and found the same conditions exist. Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Keller if this made it correct and Mr. Keller re- plied no, but was this a legal request since it exists with others. In addi- tion both he and Mrs. Keenan felt that in the winter the landscaping would present a problem when heavy snow had to be cleared, etc. Mr. Bierman then asked if he was ready or unwilling to accept condition of landscaping in front, etc. . Mr. Keller stated he was unwilling to accept it. Mr. White stated that a truck is left on the sidewalk even on Sundays. Mr. Bierman said this was not a legal point, but a safety standpoint of the community. It seemed to be the consesus that the way the front parking was presently conducted, this should be eliminated if variance granted. Mr. Keller stated that for the period of time the curb cut has been there no accident has ever occurred and this should be a very important consideration in determining if this was a hazard or not. Mr. Bierman pointed out that the present parking lot did not conform to zoning ordinances and asked Mr. Paonessa what actually was required. Mr. Pao- nessa stated that the present parking did not conform and sixty-five car spaces were actually required however much of the building consisted of storage space and not occupancy use. At the present time there are 28 spaces provided ex- cluding portion of lot directly behind the building. Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Keller if he was still in agreement with suggested conditions that parking lot be improved such as blacktopping, marking for cars and the erection of a bumper in front except for entrance with proper marking. Mr. Keller said they would comply to these conditions. Mr. Bierman questioned Mr. Keller in regard to bring the present sign in- to conformity with existing sign regulations. Mr. Keller stated this would be an additional burden on his client and when the law goes into effect they would then put in order. He also said that the present sign cost approximately $10,000.00 and to change would require an additional $10,000.00. At this time they would have to leave sign as is. 480 Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Keller if a cyclone fence would be erected at rear of property to which Mr. Keller replied this was definitely agreeable. Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Keller to explain exactly what it was that constituted practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship in this case. Mr. Keller replied that as stated previously when the building was built in 1953, it was built with a view of possible expansion and that the off-street parking facilities were more than adequate. If an addition were made prior to Zoning Regulations being changed, it would have conformed, however with new regu- lations they were not able to do this. This addition does not do violence to ordinance and will not reduce or diminish property values of adjoining properties or hinder existing neighborhood. After further discussion Mr. Howard Sloane appeared and asked if the condi- tions in his letter were acceptable to Keenan Carpet Co. and would hazards presently existing be corrected. Mr. Bierman stated that as far as deliveries being made off Boston Post Road, etc. , the Board had already made the suggestion that deliveries would be made through a new door to be cut into building, but that Mr. Keller had refused to accept this. They cannot close entrance now, but what they intend to do now would benefit neighboring areas. Mr. Edward F. X. Ryan appeared to represent Mr. & Mrs. 0, H. Hartenau of 1 Rock Ridge Road and Mr. & Mrs. Otto Scheuble of 3 Rock Ridge Road who were oppos- ing the granting of the variance. After some discussion Mr. Ryan called on Charles R. Bragdon, a consulting chemical engineer, of 4 Rock Ridge Road, who said asphalt tile is easily combusti- ble. Mr. Ryan pointed out that in allowing the variance there would be additional stocking of asphalt tiles, etc. therefore creating even a greater fire hazard. Mr. Keller stated that asphalt tile is sometimes laid with a plumber's torch and does not burn. Also most stores have some type of combustible material in them. Mr. Ryan discussed possibility of applicant purchasing adjacent property and relocation of loading platform, etc. Mr. Bierman advised Mr. Ryan all these points had been previously brought up. Following a ten minute recess, a vote was taken which resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Naye Commissioner White Naye Commissioner Wassman Naye Commissioner Mullick Naye The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Keenan Carpet Co. has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for the addition to the existing structure 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 reference to Section 410 of said Ordinance, which pro- vides for set backs, side yards, plat area, etc. ; and 481 WHEREAS, Keenan Carpet Co. 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. Topography of site in rear of property is such that the site of proposed addition could not be used for any other purpose. 2. The addition is required for badly needed storage space for stock. 3. Existing structure built in 1953 with a view for possible ex- pansion, but 1959 Zoning Ordinance now requires a variance to accomplish this. 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. 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 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 accord- ance with Section 267 of the Town Law. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 168 The Chairman requested the secretary to read the application. Application of Dr. A. F. Posterare for modification of Article IV, Sec- tion 410, Schedule of Residence District Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck so as to permit the construction of a 28-foot by 16-foot attached two car garage to the existing structure in a R-7.5 district, having a side yard of 6.5-feet rather than the minimum required side yard of 10-feet on the premises located at 679 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113, Parcel 182 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Alfred Willis, Architect 132 Larchmont Avenue Larchmont, New York Dr. A. F. Posterare 679 Forest Avenue Larchmont, New York 482 Communications: Robert L. Sallinger 283 Murray Avenue Larchmont, New York R. K. Heavilon 2 Vine Road Larchmont, New York Leon P. Jeh le 686 Forest Avenue Larchmont, New York Hans Lowey 677 Forest Avenue Larchmont, New York Mrs. Jay Opper 257 Murray Avenue Larchmont, New York In Opposition: None Mr. Bierman read five letters expressing approval for the variance re- quested. These were received and filed for the record. Mr. Willis, representing Dr. Posterare, appeared and submitted plans for the proposed addition. He advised the Board that the variance was being re- quested as Dr. Posterare requires a two car garage since there now four drivers in the family and a second car is needed. Since a car must be available day or night and the doctor should have a hurry call in bad weather, it would present a problem such as scraping ice from windows, etc. In addition, there is no other way to construct the garage due to the topography of the site. Mr. Bierman asked why the front corner of the proposed garage could not be maintained ten feet away from the side line. Mr. Willis explained part of the house has a wall connected to it and they do not want to relocate the wall. Mr. Bierman then questioned the unusual width of the garage and Mr. Willis explained that the sixteen feet were required in order to make the turn. Mr. Bierman asked if only a one car garage was constructed and set back 20-feet, couldn't a car get into it. Mr. Willis replied yes, but only one car. Mr. Bierman then asked if a one car garage, which would have a 10-foot set back, wouldn't do. Dr. Posterare explained a one car garage would not do as there were now four drivers in the family and due to a retaining wall even a one car garage would be hard to get into. Mr. Bierman asked if applicant had considered removing the retaining wall and Mr. Willis said you couldn't even touch it. Mr. Wassman asked if both cars would go into garage as the plans now existed and Mr. Willis replied yes. Mr. Bierman asked Mr. Willis if he would consider holding the front corner of the garage at 10-feet away from the side line and go back 2-feet further in rear which would reduce width to 14.5-feet rather than 16.5-feet. Mr. Willis said this was acceptable and the plan was amended by Mr. Willis. After further discussion, the Chairman asked for a vote on the application. A vote being taken resulted as follows: 483 Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner White Aye Commissioner Wassman Aye Commissioner Mullick Aye The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Dr. A. F. Posterare has submitted an application to allow the con- struction of a two car garage to the existing structure in an R-7.5 District, to the Building Inspector 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 which deals with side yards, rear yards, etc. ; and WHEREAS, Dr.Posterare 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. Because of increased drivers in family, a two car garage was re- quired to house both cars especially in inclement weather should an emergency call be received by the doctor. 2. Due to topography of lot, the garage can only be located at the side of the existing dwelling. 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 appli- cant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the aforesaid circumstances and/or conditions are as follows: 1. Because of increased drivers in family, a two car garage is required to house two cars especially in inclement weather should an emergency call be received by the doc- tor. 2. Due to topography of lot, the garage can only be located at the side of the existing dwelling. which said circumstances and/or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with respect to Sec- tion 410 would deprive the applicant of the reasonable use of such land and/or building and that for these reasons the 484 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 pur- pose. (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 two car garage, 28-foot by 14.5 foot, at the side of the existing dwelling in an R-7.5 District on the premises located at 679 Forest Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113, Parcel 182, 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 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 secretary then read the next application. APPLICATION NO. 3 - CASE 169 Application of Daniel V. Pace for modification of Article IV, Sec- tion 410, Schedule of Residence District Regulations, of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck, so as to permit an 18-foot by 9-foot addition to the existing dwelling in a R-6 district, having a rear yard of 21-feet and a side yard of 7-feet rather than the minimum required rear yard of 25-feet and the minimum required side yard of 8-feet on the premises located at Laurel Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 124, Parcel 460 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. For Appellant: Alfred Willis, Architect 132 Larchmont Avenue Larchmont, New York Daniel V. Pace Laurel Avenue Larchmont, New York In Opposition: None Mr. Willis, representing Mr. Pace, appeared and submitted plans for the proposed addition. He advised the Board that the variance was being re- quested for general purposes as there were only four rooms in the house and no place available for his child to play in or should he have overnight 485 guests there would be additional sleeping space, etc. Mr. Bierman stated this neighborhood was already congested and Mr. Pace said yes but most of it was garages, etc. Mr. Bierman asked if the addition could be 4-feet less and Mr. Willis replied that this was not practical and nothing could be done with this smaller addition. Mr. White questioned if this was going to be for seasonal use it wouldn't ease conditions all year round. Mr. Pace said he would heat if nece- ssary and Mr. Willis added that actually it could be used ten months out of the year without heating. Mr. Bierman asked if the attic couldn't be remodeled, etc. and Mr. Willis replied no as it was too small and would not be feasible. Mr. Bierman asked if there would be any objection to switching stair- way to north eastside and Mr. Willis said no this could be done. Mr. Willis amended the plan to show stairway to north east side. Following some further discussion, a vote was taken which resulted as follows: Commissioner Bierman Aye Commissioner White Aye Commissioner Wassman Naye Commissioner Mullick Naye Mr. Bierman stated that in view of a tie vote the application was automatically denied, reapplication could be made after the expiration of six months from the rendering of said decision, unless the permission of the Board for a rehearing is first obtained by application to the Board. The following resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, Daniel V. Pace has submitted an application for a building permit to the Building Inspector for the addition to the existing dwelling in a R-6 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 set backs, side yards, plat area, etc. ; and WHEREAS, Daniel V. Pace 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 addition is required for general purposes as there are only four rooms in the house and no place available for applicant's child to play in or additional sleeping space, etc. for overnight guests, etc. 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, 486 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 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 accord- ance with Section 267 of the Town Law. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meeting it was adjourned at 10:45 p.m. / c . Genevieve F. Soriano, Secretary 487