Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984_04_25 Zoning Board of Appeals MinutesI MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE ® TOWN OF MAMARONECK HELD APRIL 25, 1984, IN THE COURT HOUSE, 1201 PALMER AVENUE, TOWN OF MAMARONECK, LARCHMONT, NEW YORK. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Chairman at 8:15 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Mr. A. William Boraczek, Chairman Mr. Peter D. Mosher Mr. J. Rene Simon Mrs. Anne McAndrews Absent: Mr. Egbert R. Hardesty Also present: Mr. William Paonessa, Building Inspector Mr. Steven Silverberg, Town Counsel Dr. Lawrence Lerman, Town Councilman APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of March 28, 1984 were presented and on motion duly made and seconded, approved as submitted. QPUBLIC HEARING The Chairman declared the hearing open and the Secretary presented for the record the affidavit of publication of the notice of hearing. Mr. Boraczek asked the Secretary to read the first appli- cation which had been adjourned from the last meeting. APPLICATION NO. 1 - CASE 653 Application of Mr. and Mrs. Biagio Zarrilli for modifica- tion of Article IV Section 89-20 Subsection C (3) Permit- ted Accessory Uses in an R-7.5 One Family Residence Dis- trict which does not permit accessory structures custom- arily incidental to nonconforming business uses to permit the construction of a commercial garage to be used for commercial storage and trucks for a nononconforming nur- serby business on the premises located at 144 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mama- roneck as Block 402 Parcel 1 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. The applicant was represented by his Attorney, Mr. William Maker, who said the application had been adjourned from ® the last meeting as the Town Counsel had requested they show "dollar and cents proof" which Mr. Maker did not think was appropriate in this case. Mr. Maker stated that in a situation such as vacant land it might apply but this application was for an extension and on going use. Mr. Ir Maker said Mr. Silverberg has promised to research the law. Mr. Maker, also, showed the Board a copy of the Public Notice which had been marked with a statement that a com- mercial garage might destroy the character of the neigh- borhood and Mr. Immucci, who is the son-in-law of Mr. Zar- rilli said that the notice had been given to him by one of the neighbors who said it had been put in the mailbox. Mr. Maker said he did not want anyone to be prejudiced by this note. It was pointed out that this application had been before the Board in 1972 and approved. Mr. Maker pointed out that according to the Resolution passed by the Board at that time it was stated that a two car garage accessory to the existing building could be built without a variance and they now want a garage for the purpose of parking com- mercial trucks. Mr. Maker, also, said that the garage they are now requesting is smaller than the one the Board had approved in 1972 and he pointed out that the Court Order which had allowed the nonconforming nursery states that two trucks not larger than what is classified as a two ton truck could be used, stored and parked upon the pre- mises in the rear of the present structure and not less than 75 ft. from Weaver Street and Palmer Avenue. Mr. Maker further said that the garage they are proposing to ® build would be 146 ft. from Palmer Avenue and 138 ft. from Weaver Street. Mr. Maker, also, pointed ou that sev- eral of Mr. Zarrilli's neighbors had said they were in favor of the application. He, also, said that by having the trucks enclosed it will be better for the neighborhood and the applicant does not seek to change the business in any way it will stay the same. Mr. Maker further said that their hardship was because of vandalism and equipment being stolen and if the applicant was granted the variance the garage could be screened on three sides. Mr. Silverberg said that he could find no precedent that would hold against or in the applicants favor concerning this kind of alleged hardship, althougithe usual criteria is dollar and cents proof. He stated that the Board would have to determine whether this is an extension of the non- conformity and if it is an extension whether it is appro- priate to allow this. Mr. Silverberg further said it is presently a nonconforming use and if the variance is al- lowed they could stipulate that only two trucks could be parked on the premises. Mrs. McAndrews asked when the adjacent dwellings were built and it was pointed out that one house was built after the Court Order. Mr. Boraczek questioned as to how much higher ® the garage would be than a regular garage and it was deter- mined that it would be about another 2 ft. higher. Mr. Mosher asked who was living in the house at present and Mr. Zarrilli said no one. Mr. Mosher pointed out that when the 1962 Court Order went into effect Mrs. Tecce was J the owner and occupant and the house had always been oc- cupied as a residence with the nonconforming nursery and the property was zoned R-7.5 One Family Residence. Mr. Mosher further said they were asking for a building creat- ing a bigger and bigger business for a one family residen- tial zone. Mr. Maker replied that he did not see how the garage would cause any expansion of the business since they were not asking to expand parking for customers and it would appear the Town was supposedly hopeful the nur- sery business would disappear. A motion was made and seconded that the members recess to consult with the Town Counsel for the purpose of ask- ing legal questions pertaining to nonconforming uses. The Board then took a brief recess and questioned Counsel as to the law regarding nonconforming uses. When the Board returned Mr. Maker stated that in fairness he felt the Board should take into consideration that the premises have improved since the Zarrillis took over. Mrs. Oberg of 1214 Palmer Avenue, who is the President of the Howell Park Association said they recognize that the Redwood Nursery has been a good neighbor but are ex- tremely concerned about the additional commercial use if the property is sold and the precedent set by this property. ® Mr. Oberg said he was essentially opposed. Mr. Maker pointed out that the garage will not be seen from Palmer Avenue. Mrs. Taylor of 12 Carleon Avenue said she was concerned about the extra traffic and the children going to Central School. Mr. William Meister of 9 Hawthorne Road questioned as to whether if the owner sold the property would it revert back to residential and Mr. Silverberg said it could if it was vacated for a period of one year as a nursery. A question was raised as to why the garage had to be 36 ft. and if 26 ft. wouldn't be sufficient and Mr. Immucci said that there was also a space for storage of tools, etc. Mr. Maker said there seemed to be two concerns and it would have to be limited to nursery use and not any other business and as far as the issue of traffic they are not going to use any more vehicles than they now use. The Board asked Mr. Zarrilli why he didn't build the garage when he received the variance in 1972 and he said at that time he had a partner who had decided to retire and after he paid him he didnot have enough money left to build the garage which at that time would have cost about $40,000.00. S76 Mr. Boraczek read a letter from Mr. Attillio Zavaglia and ® Mr. Joseph Zavaglia of 150 and 156 Weaver Street, who are the adjoining property owners. In their letter the Zavag- lias expressed their opposition to the application stating that for traffic, nonconformity in a residential area and the fact that the Zarrillis do not live on the premises the variance should be disapproved. Mr. Boraczek questioned as to whether if the application was approved they could stipulate that the vehicles could only be parked in the garage and Mr. Immucci said that when the nursery is closed the trucks would be put in the garage. Mr. Simon said if the use was to be continued as a resi- dence he did not see anything wrong but he did not think it should be unoccupied. Mr. Zarrilli said he would move in shortly but if the garage is permitted he did not know how much it would cost and he would have to have work done in the house before he could move back in. A motion was made by Mr. Mosher that the Board deny the application and seconded by Mr. Simon with Mrs. McAndrews also voting against the application and Mr. Boraczek ab- staining. The application was therefore denied with the reasons being made part of the following Resolution: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Biagio Zarrilli have submitted an application for a building per- mit to allow the construction of a commercial garage to be used for commercial storage and trucks for a nonconforming nursery business, together with plans; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with the Zon- ing Ordinance of the Town of Mamaroneck with particular reference to Article IV Section 89-20 Subsection C Permitted Accessory Uses in an R-7.5 Residence District which does not permit the construction of accessory structures customarily incidental to nonconforming busi- ness uses on the premises located at 144 Weaver Street and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 402 Parcel 1; and C WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Biagio Zarrilli have submitted an application to this Board for a variance on the ground of practical diffi- culty and/or unnecessary hardship for the fol- lowing reason: 1. The applicants are without garage I facilities and the proposed garage ® is needed to house two small trucks, dry goods (such as fertilizer) hand tools and miscellaneous equipment. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plans, reviewed the application and has heard all per- sons interested in this application after pub- lication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board denied the applica- tion on the following grounds: 1. That the construction of a two bay commercial garage to house trucks and dry goods would be extending a nonconforming use in a residential area. 2. The applicants did not show any economic hardship would be suffered due to the strict application of the Zoning Regulations. 3. Applicant has not shown that the C denial of this application would ad- versely effect its business. 4. Applicant has failed to show that the property could not be used for a permitted use. 5. That there are no special circum- stances or conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances or conditions are peculiar to such land in the district. 6. That the facts and circumstances claimed by the applicant to entitle him to the variance are not such as woud deprive him of the reasonable use of the land. 7. That the granting of the variance would not be in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the Ordinance and would be injurious to the neigh- borhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. ® FURTHER RESOLVED, that this decision be filed with the Town Clerk as provided in Section 267 of the Town Law. The Chairman asked the Secretar ' to read the next appli- I cation. APPLICATION NO. 2 - CASE 655 Application of Mr. and Mrs. David Furer for modification of Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B 2 (a) "Construc- tion Requirements for an R-7.5 One Family Residence Dis- trict" which requires a minimum side yard of 10 ft. to allow the construction of an enclosed porch over an exist- ing terrace maintaining an existing nonconforming side yard of 6.6 ft. on the premises located at 144 North Chats- worth Avenue and known on the Tax Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113 Parcel 5 on the grounds of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hardship. Mrs. Furer, who was present, was represented by her Ar- chitect, Mr. William Walther, who presented the Board with photographs and a model showing how the enclosed porch will look. Mr. Walther said the applicants want the porch enclosed to make extra room and the enclosure will conform to the existing structure. Mr. Walther fur- ther said they are maintaining the existing lines and the Furers need room as their children are growing. Mr. Walther, also, pointed out that the house was in need of substantial repair work around the terrace. Mr. Walther presented the Board with a letter from the QFurer's next door neighbor. Mr. Boraczek read the letter from Mr. Harfenist of 142 North Chatsworth Avenue. Mr. Harfenist in his letter said he had reviewed the plans and specifications and advised the Board he had no objec- tion to the approval of the application. A motion was made and seconded that the application be • approved and on a vote of 4 to 0 the application was ap- proved and the following Resolution adopted: WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. David Furer have submitted an application to the Building Inspector to allow the construction of an enclosed porch over an existing terrace maintaining an exist- ing nonconforming side yard of 6.6 ft. , together with plans; and WHEREAS, the Building Inspector has refused to issue such permit on the grounds that the plans submitted failed to comply with Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B 2 (a) "Construc- tion Requirements for an R-7.5 One Family Resi- dence District" which requires a minimum side yard of 10 ft. on the premises located at 144 North Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax ® Assessment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113 Parcel 5; and WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. David Furer have submitted an application for a variance on the ground f' C of practical difficulty and/or unnecessary hard- ® ship for the following reasons: 1. Substantial repair work required on and around terrace. 2. New work does not extend beyond existing building boundaries. 3. Irregular lot configuration places existing building noncompliance with Zoning Ordinance. 4. Family needs additional living space. WHEREAS, this Board has examined the plan, re- viewed the application and has heard all persons interested in this application after publication of a notice thereof, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that this Board granted the applica- tion on the following grounds: (a) That there are special circumstances and conditions applying to the land for which the variance is sought, which circumstances and/or conditions have not resulted from any acts of the ap- plicant subsequent to the date of the Zoning Regulations appealed from. (b) That the said circumstances and/ or conditions are as follows: 1. The proposed enclosed porch will not extend into the side yard any further than the present structure. 2. The proposed location is the only practical and economical way to expand for additional living space. 3. That the existing ter- race and foundation is in disrepair and in need of repair work. 4. That said circumstances ® or conditions are such that the particular application of the Ordinance with res- pect to Article VI Section 89-34 Subsection B 2 (a) "Construction Requirements ® for an R-7.5 One Family Resi- dence District" would deprive the applicant of the reason- able use of the land and/or building and that the vari- ance as granted by this Board is a minimum adjustment that will accomplish this purpose. 5. That the granting of the variance is 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 pub- lic welfare; and it is FURTHER RESOLVED, that a variance is hereby granted and that Article VI Section 89-34 Sub- section B 2 (a) "Construction Requirements for an R-7.5 One Family Residence District" be varied and modified so as to allow the construction of an enclosed porch over an existing terrace maintaining an existing nonconforming side yard of 6.6 ft. on the premises located at 144 North C Chatsworth Avenue and known on the Tax Assess- ment Map of the Town of Mamaroneck as Block 113 Parcel 5 in strict conformance with plans filed with this application provided that the applicant complies in all other respects with the Zoning Ordinance and Building Code of the Town of Mamaroneck. FURTHER RESOLVED, that in accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance 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. The 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. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before this meet- () ing it was adjourned at 9:45 P.M. Rita A. John n, Secretary