Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1957_01_23 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes I MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK, HELD JANUARY 23, 1957, IN THE COURT ROOM OF THE MAMARONECK POLICE DE- PARTMENT, 11 EDGEWOOD AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. CALL TO ORDER PRESENT: Mr. A. E. Wullschleger, Chairman Mr. Sydney D. Bierman Mr. Robert L. Parsons Mr. George Schuler Mr. Laurence J. Sobel ABSENT: None Also Present: Town Engineer Friedlander APPROVAL OF MINUTES On motion by Chairman Wullschleger, seconded by Mr. Sobel, the minutes of the adjourned meeting held January 9, 1957, were approved as presented. RE CON EDISON APPLICATION The Chairman directed the Secretary to invite the represen- tatives of Con Edison, together with interested property owners, to meet with the members of the Board, on Saturday, February 16, 1957, at 11 a. m. , at Bonnie Way and Weaver Street, in order to view the site of the proposed Con Edison installation. APPLICATION #1 - Moses Cammer, 91 West Garden Road, Larchmont Application of M ses Cammer for modification of Article II, Section 6, Subsection 3, of the Zoning Ordinance, so as to allow the erection of a playhouse with less than 3 feet from the rear and side property line, on premises known as Block 218, Parcel 344, on the Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck, located at 91 West Garden Road, Larchmont, on the ground that there is practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship in conform- ing with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. C APPEARANCES: Appellant - Mr. Moses Cammer In Opposition - None Mr. Cammer appeared in his own behalf and stated that he wished to withdraw his application. He said he has become aware that his neighbors are not happy with the present lo- cation of the structure. Therefore, he intends to remove and re-locate it so as to conform with the Building and Zoning regulations. However, in view of the inclement weather during the winter season, he requested permission to defer the removal until May 1957. ACTION OF THE BOARD: Request granted. THE VOTE: AFFIRMATIVE: Chairman Wullschleger, Messrs. Bierman, Parsons, Schuler, Sobel NEGATIVE: None THE RESOLUTION: On motion duly made and seconded, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: RESOLVED, that Appellant's request for leave to with- draw this application be granted, with the understanding that on or before May 31, 1957, Appellant is to re-locate the structure in conformity with all Building and Zoning regulations of the Town of Mamaroneck, or is to remove said structure entirely. FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided by Section 267 of the Town Law. APPLICATION # 2 - Frank J. Negri and Gertrude M. Negri, 2 Merritt Street Application of Frank J. Negri, and Gertrude M. Negri, for modification of Article III, Section 14, of the Zoning Ordinance, r so as to allow the construction of a two-family house on approximately one-eighth acre of land, and accommodating more than 10 families per acre, or fraction thereof, on premises known as Block 403, Part of Parcel 61, on the Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck, located at 2 Merritt Street, Mamaroneck, on the ground that there is practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship in con- forming with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. APPEARANCES: Appellants - Mr. & Mrs. Frank J. Negri For Appellants - Mr. Joseph Faillace 584 Mamaroneck Avenue Mamaroneck, N. Y. Mr. Angelo Rigano, Blossom Terrace Mr. Dominick Lancia, Blossom Terrace Mr. Thomas Santoro, Blossom Terrace Mr. Faillace stated that he is a friend of Appellants and that, although he was not an attorney, he had been requested by them to represent them at this hearing and present their case to this Board. Before proceeding further, Mr. Bierman read to the Board, the written statement which the Appellants had attached to their petition and which set forth the reasons alleged by the Appellants for the need for a variance. Mr. Faillace proceeded to explain that the Negris entered into a written contract for the purchase of the premises upon which the house involved had not as yet been constructed. He produced the contract for the Board's examination, and pointed out several provisions therein which indicated that the Negris were purchasing a two-family dwelling. He further stated that when the construction of the house had been completed, and the matter ready for closing of title in December 1956, it then became apparent to the Negris that the selling builder, Hubert M. Finnerty, did not intend to finish the construction as a two-family house, and would only be able to deliver the house for occupancy as a one-family dwelling, because it had been built on a lot having less area than that re- I quired for a two-family house, under the Zoning regulations. It appeared that this lot contained only about one-eigth of an acre , whereas, a minimum of one-fifth of an acre is re- quired under the regulations. Mr. Faillace pointed out that by this time the Negris had made final arrangements to move from their current home into this new house and, that, therefore, at the closing of title they had no alternative but to accept title to the house. He finally urged that unless the variance was granted, so that the Negris could lawfully rent out the second floor apartment, which was ready to be completed as a separate apartment, they might have to sell the house since they would not be able to carry it without the rental income from the second floor. In response to Mr. Bierman's question, Mr. Faillace stated that the Negris had been represented by counsel, Gerald Rosenthal of Harrison, N. Y. , both at the closing of the contract and at the closing of title. Mr. Bierman then read from the purchase contract the clauses wherein the parties agreed, in substance, that, in the event a two-family house could not be delivered by the seller, the Negris could cancel the contract and receive their money back. In response to this, Mr. Faillace stated that the Negris had no choice but to accept the house as tendered because they had al- ready made arrangements to move in and they believed it too late to change their plans. An examination, by the members of the Board, of the building application and plans on file in the Town Engineer's office, which were produced at the hearing and which were specifically referred to in the purchase contract, showed that the application referred to the proposed house as a one-family dwelling. More- over, the Certificate of Occupancy actually issued by the Town of Mamaroneck upon completion of the construction specifically prescribed one-family occupancy only. In response to Chairman Wullschleger's question, the Town Engineer, Mr. Friedlander, reported that there was at least one other parcel in this area similarly constructed by the same builder which also would not be able to be occupied as a two-family house without a variance. r Mr. Sobel stated that while he was sympathetic towards the predicament in which the Appellants found themselves, never- theless, the density provisions of the Zoning regulations are regarded by him as highly important. He observed that to permit more than 10 families per acre would create safety and hehlth problems which the regulations are designed to prevent and safeguard against. He condemned the action of the seller in filing an application for a one-family house and then treating it as a proposed two-family in the sale transaction. Chairman Wullschleger stated his belief that, from his inspection of the area, the granting of a variance in this case would set a precedent for the granting of additional variances for other parcels lacking the required area and this would serve to change the density of the area and over-ride the purpose and intent of the density pro- visions of the regulations. Mr. Parsons stated that, in his opinion, there seemed to be no question but that the Negris were in an unfortunate position but they could have, and should have, protected themselves and for the Board to grant the variance would be tantamount to condoning what he considered to be improper and unfair conduct on the part of the seller. Mr. Schuler agreed with the sympathetic aspect of the case but felt that there was no justifiable basis upon which the Board could properly grant a variance. Mr. Bierman stated that he found himself straining to find some basis upon which this Board properly could grant the Appellants some relief. He agreed that no basis or legal justification for a variance had been shown and that he presently knew of no solution which could be offered to help the Negris and at the same time protect the community at large and preserve the integrity of the Zoning regulations. He advised Mr. Faillace that, if a delay would be helpful to enable Appellants to submit further facts or evidence upon which a variance could properly be granted, he would recommend to the Board that the matter be deferred. Mr. Faillace replied that Appellants did not wish any further delay and would prefer that the matter be determined at this session. r Mr. Rigano stated that he had come to the hearing ready to oppose the application but that, after listening to the Negris' story, he hoped the Board would make an exception in this case. Upon questioning by several members of the Board, Mr. Rigano confirmed that there was at least one other parcel in the area which undoubtedly would become the subject of an application for a variance if this variance were granted. Mr. Santoro suggested that perhaps the Board could go along with granting a variance to the Negris with the definite under- standing that no other density variance would be granted in that area. Mr. Bierman pointed out that such a procedure would not be possible and that future applications for density variances would have to be determined upon the particular facts and circumstances in each case. Before concluding the hearing, Mr. Faillace expressed his thanks and appreciation to the members of the Board for their careful and sympathetic attention to this matter. ACTION OF THE BOARD: Appeal denied. THE VOTE: AFFIRMATIVE: Chairman Wullschleger, Messrs. Bierman, Parsons, Schuler, Sobel NEGATIVE: None THE RESOLUTION: On motion duly made and seconded, the following resolution was unanimously adopted: WHEREAS, Frank J. Negri and Gertrude M. Negri, have filed an appeal from a decision of the Building Inspector of the Town of Mamaroneck refusing a permit for the con- struction of a two-family dwelling on premises known as Block 403, Part of Parcel 61, on the Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck, according to certain plans filed with him; and 7 WHEREAS, frank J. Negri and Gertrude M. Negri request that because of practical difficulty and unnecessary hardship this Board grant a variance and over-rule the decision of the Building Inspector; and WHEREAS, this Board has viewed the property and has examined the plans and other matters submitted by the Appellants, and has heard all persons appearing for or against the appeal, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the appeal of Frank J. Negri and Gertrude M. Negri, from the decision of the Building Inspector refusing the issuance of a permit for the construction of a two-family dwelling, on premises at 2 Blossom Terrace (formerly 2 Merritt Street), and known as Block 403, Part of Parcel 61, on the Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck, is denied, on the ground that Appellants have failed to show any practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided by Section 267 of the Town Law. There being no further business to come before the meeting, it was adjourned at 9:15 p. m. Secretary: 6.),_k(-- cu: 2u Q, Fh �-L •