Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1969_04_09 Planning Board Minutes MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TOWN OF MAMARONECK PLANNING BOARD HELD APRIL 9, 1969, IN THE COUNCIL ROOM OF THE WEAVER STREET FIREHOUSE, WEAVER STREET AND EDGEWOOD AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. Fred L. Maggini, Chairman Mr. Joseph Rigano Mr. Lee Bloom Absent: Mr. G. Norman Blair Also present: Mrs. Christine Helwig, Supervisor Mr. James J. Johnston, Town Attorney Mr. Richard F. Eggers, Chairman of the Zoning Board Mr. William P. Widulski, Town Engineer Mr. William Paonessa, Town Building Inspector Mr. Potenza and Mr. Weis, Westchester County Department of Planning APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of March 12, 1969 were presented and on motion duly made and seconded, ap- proved as submitted. SUBDIVISION OF SANKAY REALTY CORP. Mr. Polcini, the owner of the property in question appeared before the Board. Mr. Polcini's map had been approved at a Public Hearing on May 6, 1957 but Mr. Polcini had never furnished a Performance Bond or the necessary deeds. When the applicant's builder presented the Building Inspector with a plan to build one house after almost twelve years had elapsed since the approval of the plan the Building Inspector could not approve the application. Since Mr. Polcini's map was signed the adjoining property had been developed (Carriage House Lane Subdivision) and provision was made to carry Carriage House Lane through to Griffen Avenue. The original map approved by the Board had a cul-de-sac off Griffen Avenue. The Planning Board asked Mr. Polcini to run the road straight through from Griffen Avenue to Carriage House Lane. Mr. Polcini asked if it was possible to have a slight bend in the road as he wanted to increase the area of two of the lots on the westerly side of the property and that this was his purpose in creating the cul-de-sac originally. Mr. Widulski stated that the applicant would not achieve appre- ciable land additions to the westerly lots by curv- I ing the extension of Carriage House Lane. It was pointed out that each lot will contain over 20,000 square feet which is comparative to the lot sizes on Carriage House Lane and conforming with the Town Zoning Regulations. The Board, also, pointed out that bends in the road were a hazard to traffic and a detriment to snow removal, and police and fire protection. The Board asked Mr. Polcini to return for the next meeting on May 14, 1969 with an up-to-date plan and the Secretary was to arrange for a Public Hearing after a formal application is made by Mr. Polcini to the Planning Board. PROTANO PROPERTY The Board discussed the Public Hearing to be held on April 28, 1969 by the Village of Mamaroneck Plan- ning Board on the rezoning of the Protano property lying between Fenimore Road and Highview Street from R-6 to R-5 or OB-l. Mr. Protano had previously ap- plied to the Village Board to erect "Cluster houses" but he did not have sufficient land for the amount of houses he wanted to build. The Board seemed to think changing the zoning to OB-1 would be prefer- able to changing to R-5 but after discussion decided there would be a parking problem associated with office building use. The Board decided they would advise the Town Board of their opposition to the 'down zoning" and would like to have it remain R-6 which is more consistent with the surrounding residential area. JOINT MEETING Members of the Board had been sent a copy of a letter Mr. Eggers had sent to Mrs. Helwig giving his rec- ommendations and also a copy of Minutes of a Special Meeting held April 4, 1965 with recommendations by Mr. Sidney Bierman, the former Chairman of the Zoning Board. Mr. Eggers first suggestion recommended that the Zoning Board be enlarged from five to seven members. Mr. Eggers explained that it was not always possible for all five members to be present and very often there were only three members able to attend a meet- ing which meant the vote on each application had to be unanimous. If there were a seven member Board it would be possible to have at least five members present at each meeting. The second recommendation suggested that the Zoning Regulations and Building Code be more specific in reference to parking, customer's areas and other elements. Mr. Eggers stated that in a recent appli- cation the lawyer representing the applicant insisted that the Zoning Regulations were not specific and © the Board therefore should hold for the applicant. At present the Zoning Ordinance requires one park- ing space for each 50 square feet of floor space but Mr. Eggers feels that each parking space should be a specific size with aisle space considered. Mr. Eggers third recommendation was in reference to the fencing ordinance which he thinks should be established according to usage rather than the "broad brush" specification that we now have. The Zoning Ordinance should take into consideration whether the property adjoins an industrial area, etc. It was, also, suggested that people who continue in violation should be fined from $10. to $100. a day. The fourth suggestion recommends that refinements be made in the existing Zoning map. It was proposed that Mr. Maggini and Mr. Eggers go around section by section and look at the different areas where the land presently is stagnant because of Zoning Regulations. It was decided that Mr. Bierman's recommendation regarding Section 550.2 Paragraph (b) of the Zoning Ordinance which limits the authority of the Zoning Board to grant variances solely on the specific physi- cal conditions enumerated and thereby conflicts with the Town Law which stipulates a much broader scope be given consideration. Mr. Bierman's suggestion that Section 432 dealing with "Special Permitted Uses" be revised to give jurisdiction to the Zoning Board of Appeals rather than the Town Board was discussed. It was pointed out that such cases are usually sent of the Planning Board for their consideration and recommendation before being heard th the Town Board and this system has worked well to date. Mr. Bierman had recommended that in all actions of the Planning Board which effect the rights of a contiguous owner the Board be required to notify said owner or owners of the contemplated action of the Board. Mr. Maggini stated that in most cases he personally contacted the owner and if a notice was mandatory it might present problems for if one person were omitted it could negate the action of the Planning Board and necessitate delays. Mr. Bierman, also, suggested that an Architectural Board of Review review all new building applications and that their recommendations accompany all appli- cations for variances. It was pointed out that at the present time the Architectural Board of Review only reviews plans for application for "Special Per- mits". It was decided that this should be looked into. 7 Mr. Bierman had also recommended that the matter of the setback regulations for Business Zones, par- ticularly on the Post Road be reviewed by the Plan- ning Commission for the purposes of revision. It was pointed out that lots become stagnant and cannot be developed because the coverage requirements and parking requirements render the plot economically restrictive. The suggestion was made that something should be done for the small lots that are vacant and because the maximum building coverage is 25% which works well in shopping center areas but it causes hardship for the small plot owner. All of these matters were referred to the Engineer and Building Inspector for review. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meeting it was adjourned at 10:20 p.m. 0(-±...„2-,„ a 4 ,,t---,',„„,,,,....../ Rita A. Johnson,' Secretary