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